[112633] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: SUP720 vs. SUP32
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Blackford)
Wed Mar 11 15:06:33 2009
From: Bill Blackford <BBlackford@nwresd.k12.or.us>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:06:05 -0700
In-Reply-To: <6069A203FD01884885C037F81DD75080CA064DA9@wsc-mail-01.intra.nwresd.k12.or.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Thank you to everyone who offered advice. I thinks it's clearer what my pat=
h should be.
Incidentally, I am using 7300/7200 based units with G1 RP and found that at=
200M they start seeing 50% CPU load which is why I'm looking to go to the =
next step.
Again, thanks to all
-b
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Blackford [mailto:BBlackford@nwresd.k12.or.us]=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 11:18 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: SUP720 vs. SUP32
Anyone have any experience with SUP32? Please contact me off list.
I'm trying to evaluate a lower-cost alternative to the 720-3bxl.
I'm only pushing a few hundred megs of traffic, exchanging a few routes wit=
h less than 20 peers and don't see the need for a 720's worth of throughput=
in the near future.
Can the 32 handle a full table?
How does the MFSC2A compare to the MFSC3?
V6 support?
Thank you.
--
Bill Blackford =20
Senior Network Engineer =20
my /home away from home
