[114588] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NPE-G2 vs. Sup720-3BXL
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Elmar K. Bins)
Fri May 15 11:21:35 2009
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:21:28 +0200
From: "Elmar K. Bins" <elmi@4ever.de>
To: David Storandt <dstorandt@teljet.com>
Mail-Followup-To: "Elmar K. Bins" <elmi@4ever.de>,
David Storandt <dstorandt@teljet.com>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <f52f476c0905150807u1a1b3a21ib5637274adb55ee0@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
dstorandt@teljet.com (David Storandt) wrote:
> Our engineering team has settled on three $20k/node options:
> - Sup720-3BXLs with PS and fan upgrades
Still quite slow CPU wise. RSP's are supposed to be a lot faster
and actually usable.
> - Sup2s as switches + ISIS + statics and no BGP, push BGP edge routing
> off to NPE-G2s across a 2-3Gbps port-channel
The NPE-G2 - even an NPE-G1 - will do all that BGP stuff easily;
the CPU is fast enough. But...you might be in for a bad surprise
concerning the Portchannel.
Remember - it's done in software. So, depending on your packet
sizes, you might experience a throughput _drop_ once you bundle.
My experiments were done with very small packets though (DNS
queries and responses, avg. packet size around 140 Byte).
The devices I tested were the 1RU models (7301 for NPE-G1 and
7201 for NPE-G2). In "unbundled mode" they pushed around 940 kpps
(G1) and 1320 kpps (G2) with CPU loads between 85% and 100%.
Channel bundling took a lot out of the boxes. 7301 keeled over
at 470, 7201 at 660 kpps.
If you're only pushing big packets, though...
Yours,
Elmar.
