[67026] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: CIsco 7206VXR w/NPE-G1 Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Luke Starrett)
Sat Jan 31 05:46:50 2004
From: "Luke Starrett" <lstarrett@nc.rr.com>
To: "'David Luyer'" <david@luyer.net>,
"'Rubens Kuhl Jr.'" <rubens@email.com>, "'Nanog'" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:47:38 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20040131030128.GB31265@pacific.net.au>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:29:41PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
> > > * The 7206VXR prior to the NPE-G1 could only do around 560Mbps
> > > per bus typically, due to PCI limitations.
> >
> > Which usually was not a problem with i-mix traffic or ddos-traffic,
> > because pps limitation would hit sooner.
> >
> > > * Compiled ACLs on 12.2S perform very well on NPE-G1s.
> >
> > I saw no mention of PXF on NPE-G1; it seemed the path 7200
> would take
> > after NSE-1. What happened ?
> PXF is found in the 7400 (old) and 7300 (newer) series.
Not true. 7401 has a PXF. It's essentially an NSE-1 with GE/IO in a
pizza box. 7301 is based on the NPE-G1 and doesn't have a PXF anywhere
in sight.
> The 7400 was extremely unstable until very recently (with
> 12.2(14)S5 it is quite stable, as long as you have the
> hardware with the fixed L3 cache or have the L3 cache
> disabled), which is perhaps why PXF was not pushed so heavily
> after that experience.
>
> I have not used a 7300. If you want to look at what features
> they are pushing into PXF on them, look at the 12.2(20)S
> release notes. After the pain of being an early adopter of
> the 7400 I'm staying well away from the 7300 until I see
> others using them without stability issues.
>
> 7400 is closely related to the NPE400 (actually NSE-1), 7300
> is closely related to the NPE-G1.
>
> David.
>
