[91358] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Deaggregation Disease
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jon Lewis)
Fri Jul 21 14:51:54 2006
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:51:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <200607211817.k6LIHduj027065@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> The big question is, of course, whether to upgrade a 6500 and keep it on
> life support, or bite the bullet and go for a whole new box. How much time
> a -3bxl and careful filtering will buy you does depend heavily on where in
> the Internet you are - but I'm willing to bet that a good number of sites
> will go for the fork lift upgrade because there are *other* pressing things
> coming up that the 6500 won't do either.
With a 3bxl, you won't need careful filtering. All the lower Sups top out
at or slightly below 256k routes. IIRC, the 3bxl claims to support 1M
ipv4 routes. Anyone else care to guess at how far off 235k routes is?
> I'll concede that Jon is at least partially right - *somebody* is going to
> be selling gear... ;)
Yeah...I posted recently on cisco-nsp that I think cisco's making a huge
mistake not producing a Sup32-3bxl. When the Sup2 can't cope with "full
routes" anymore, I suspect the Sup720-3bxl will already have been
obsoleted by some higher end Sup. Then networks that would have bought
Sup32-3bxl's for the route capacity, and don't really need the traffic
capacity of the Sup720-3bxl will snap up Sup720-3bxl (and the required
fan2s and power supplies) off the used market while bigger/richer networks
upgrade to the Sup720-3bxl replacement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis | I route
Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are
Atlantic Net |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
