[114601] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NPE-G2 vs. Sup720-3BXL
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Crooks, Sam)
Fri May 15 14:42:55 2009
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 13:41:16 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20b13c6b0905151134y3e77ed6ele043dad1ae107079@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Crooks, Sam" <Sam.Crooks@experian.com>
To: "David Storandt" <dstorandt@teljet.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
You may also take a look at the Cisco ASR1000 line... Supposedly a
middle step between 7200 and 7600 router sizing..
=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arie Vayner [mailto:arievayner@gmail.com]=20
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:34 PM
> To: David Storandt
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: NPE-G2 vs. Sup720-3BXL
>=20
> David,
>=20
> My 1st advice would be to look also at the other=20
> features/capabilities you require, and not just at "feeds and speeds".
>=20
> Some examples for functionality could be:
> - QOS
> - NetFlow
> - DDoS resistance
>=20
> In general the 6500 and the 12000 are hardware based=20
> platforms, with the 12000 being more distributed in nature,=20
> using linecard resources for data plane (6500 does it too if=20
> you have DFC installed). 7200 is a CPU/software based=20
> platform, so the same processor does packet forwarding and=20
> control plane processing.
>=20
> The 6500 (depends on specific module selection) is more=20
> restricted with QOS and NetFlow functionality as it is=20
> designed to do very fast forwarding at a relativly cheaper price.
> The 12000 has everything implemented in hardware, and depends=20
> on the engine types (don't use anything other than Eng 3 or=20
> 5) has all the support you may dream of for things like QOS=20
> and other features.
> The 7200 is a software based router, which means that it=20
> support any feature you may ever dream of, but the=20
> scalability decreases as you turn them on.
>=20
> Another option you should consider seriously should be the=20
> ASR1000 router, which is a newer platform and has a new=20
> architecture. All its features are based on hardware support,=20
> and it could actually prove the best choice for what you need.
> The ASR1002 comes with 4 integrated 1GE ports, which could be=20
> all that you would ever need (but it has quite a few=20
> extension slots left).
>=20
> Arie
>=20
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:07 PM, David Storandt=20
> <dstorandt@teljet.com>wrote:
>=20
> > We're stuck in an engineering pickle, so some experience from this=20
> > crew would be useful in tie-breaking...
> >
> > We operate a business-grade FTTx ISP with ~75 customers and=20
> 800Mbps of=20
> > Internet traffic, currently using 6509/Sup2s for core=20
> routing and port=20
> > aggregation. The MSFC2s are under stress from 3x full route feeds,=20
> > pared down to 85% to fit the TCAM tables. One system has a FlexWAN=20
> > with an OC3 card and it's crushing the CPU on the MSFC2.=20
> System tuning=20
> > (stable IOS and esp. disabling SPD) helped a lot but still doesn't=20
> > have the power to pull through. Hardware upgrades are needed...
> >
> > We need true full routes and more CPU horsepower for crunching BGP
> > (+12 smaller peers + ISIS). OC3 interfaces are going to be=20
> mandatory,=20
> > one each at two locations. Oh yeah, we're still a larger startup=20
> > without endless pockets. Power, rack space, and SmartNet are not=20
> > concerns at any location (on-site cold spares). We may need an=20
> > upstream OC12 in the future but that's a ways out and not a concern=20
> > here.
> >
> > Our engineering team has settled on three $20k/node options:
> > - Sup720-3BXLs with PS and fan upgrades
> > - Sup2s as switches + ISIS + statics and no BGP, push BGP=20
> edge routing=20
> > off to NPE-G2s across a 2-3Gbps port-channel
> > - Sup2s as switches + ISIS + statics and no BGP, push BGP=20
> edge routing=20
> > off to a 12008 with E3 engines across a 2-3Gbps port-channel.
> >
> > Ideas and constructive opinions welcome, especially software and=20
> > stability-related.
> >
> > Many thanks,
> > -Dave
> >
> >
>=20
