[31979] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: RADWare Linkproof? (or better ways to multihome)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brantley Jones)
Thu Nov 2 12:15:45 2000
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001102110847.02cdfe90@cw.redundant.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:11:49 -0600
To: <MRae@uunet.ca>, "'Barton F. Bruce'" <barton@gnaps.com>,
"'Mike Johnson'" <mike.johnson@isunnetworks.com>,
"'Larry Rosenman'" <ler@lerctr.org>
From: "Brantley Jones" <bjones@redundant.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <04ec01c04463$8c871d10$38074d8e@uunet.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
If you were gonna put down the $$ for a 7206, I would look hard at a little
Juniper M5 with a 4-port ethernet card. 40M pps and 5 Gbps ought to be all
the throughput you can handle for less than $40K. A 7206VXR's throughput
is a fraction of that.
Brantley
At 07:26 PM 11/1/2000 -0500, Mike Rae wrote:
>Are we talking the support of FE interfaces, or support of FE throughputs ?
>
>The switch may indeed support FE ports, but performance of the router will
>vary with packet size, IOS featues etc. I would be very suspect of the 2621
>supporting even 1x10baseT FD at wirespeed ...
>
>Based upon my experience (limited I conceed) the 72xx is the minimum router
>to support the potential throughput of multiple FE ports ...
>
>Regards
>Mike
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> > Barton F. Bruce
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 10:33 PM
> > To: Mike Johnson; Larry Rosenman
> > Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> > Subject: Re: RADWare Linkproof? (or better ways to multihome)
> >
> >
> >
> > You could always use a 2620 or 2621 with their internal 1 or 2 fast
> > ethernet ports and then use an external VLAN savvy switch to
> > get as many
> > more as you need.
> >
> > Use one switch port for the 802.1q vlan trunk, and set each
> > other switch
> > port to be in a seperate vlan. Create subinterfaces on the router for
> > each, and use the vlan number as the .<whatever> subinterface
> > number for
> > simplicity.
> >
> > Some reports say a 262x can actually hold 128 meg dram. If not, cisco
> > has again proven they don't learn, or that engineered obsolescence is
> > the arrogant thing to do.
> >
> > There is the 2650 or 2651 option that DOES support 128 meg,
> > but is sadly
> > overpriced with no expansion to speak of.
> >
> > If getting the 7206, realise that there is now a dual 10/100
> > option for
> > the I/O controller card as well as a gig-e/10meg dual port I/O card
> > option. It is less $ than the PA-GE card. The gig-e can do VLANS, too.
> > DON'T get the PA card with dual 100 meg as it isn't designed for full
> > speed.
> >
> > Also consider the 300 processor as obsolete now with the 400
> > at the same
> > price. I wonder why the 400 is less $ than the NSE-1, too.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mike Johnson" <mike.johnson@isunnetworks.com>
> > To: "Larry Rosenman" <ler@lerctr.org>
> > Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 5:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: RADWare Linkproof? (or better ways to multihome)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Larry Rosenman [ler@lerctr.org] wrote:
> > >
> > > > For the record, I've got a customer taking 2 full BGP
> > tables with a
> > > > 3640 with 128Meg of RAM.
> > >
> > > Can anything less than a 7200 handle three (preferably four) fast
> > > ethernet interfaces? That was my sole reason for going that route
> > > as it seems to be the smallest Cisco that will provide four fast-E
> > > connections (according to Cisco docs that I may have misread).
> > >
> > > > (not sure of cost...)
> > >
> > > Well, it's certainly cheaper than a 7206...
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike
> > > --
> > > Mike Johnson
> > > Network Engineer / iSun Networks, Inc.
> > > Morrisville, NC
> > > All opinions are mine, not those of my employer
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
