Mailing List Archive: Cisco: NSP

PA-MC-8T1

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

graham at g-rock

Nov 25, 2009, 8:09 PM

Post #1 of 8 (707 views)
Permalink

PA-MC-8T1

Hi all,

Just wanted to confirm before I spend the money ....

I am looking at the WAN card PA-MC-8T1 for some T1 aggregation points,
inserted into FlexWAN/6500. As I am reading the data sheet for it, it looks
like it can do non-channelized connections, right? Need to consolidate down
some non-fractional/channelized T1s...

Thanks,

-graham

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

gert at greenie

Nov 26, 2009, 10:08 AM

Post #2 of 8 (656 views)
Permalink

Re: PA-MC-8T1 [In reply to]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:09:12PM -0600, Graham Wooden wrote:
> Just wanted to confirm before I spend the money ....
>
> I am looking at the WAN card PA-MC-8T1 for some T1 aggregation points,
> inserted into FlexWAN/6500. As I am reading the data sheet for it, it looks
> like it can do non-channelized connections, right? Need to consolidate down
> some non-fractional/channelized T1s...

I have no experience with the PA-MC-8T1, but we use a lot of MC-8E1s in
our network. It can do "full rate" E1s (1984 time slots) and of course
sub-rate. The total number of interfaces is limited to a number that I
forgot, so you can't do 8 x 30 DS0 interfaces - what we did at the time
was to run 6x full rate and 2x channelized E1s on them.

Now for the FlexWAN: seriously reconsider whether you want to go there,
or whether you want to get a used 7200 instead and just put it on top
of the 6500, giving you 4 or 6 PA slots for the price of a single FlexWAN
with two slots. The problem with the FlexWAN is not that it wouldn't work,
but that Cisco has a nasty habit of discontinueing support for 6500 blades
that are less-than-mainstream in new IOS trains - FlexWAN is already
unsupported in most recent IOS versions (SXH, I think, dropped FW support)
and you would need to use "enhanced FlexWAN".

(I certainly can understand that old hardware needs to die at some point,
but if all you have is a 6500, and you need SXH/SXI to support one half
of your hardware, and 'no more recent than SXF' to support the *other*
half, you're sort of stuck in "I hate Cisco" land. If you have multiple
baskets, it's much easier to balance IOS reality vs. real world needs)

((I also think the FlexWAN was a very nice idea. Fortunately enough,
for the longest time it was just too expensive to be more interesting
than "just get another 7200" - and when we saw that it was already being
dropped, we congratulated ourselves for not having fallen into every single
6500 BU trap))

gert

--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net

graham at g-rock

Nov 26, 2009, 6:11 PM

Post #3 of 8 (648 views)
Permalink

Re: PA-MC-8T1 [In reply to]

Gert, good thinking. I keep forgetting about the c7200 platform.
There are some good deals on ones with the NPE200s in them. Heck, cheap
enough to have a spare ...

Thanks again and take care,

-graham

On 11/26/09 12:08 PM, "Gert Doering" <gert [at] greenie> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:09:12PM -0600, Graham Wooden wrote:
>> Just wanted to confirm before I spend the money ....
>>
>> I am looking at the WAN card PA-MC-8T1 for some T1 aggregation points,
>> inserted into FlexWAN/6500. As I am reading the data sheet for it, it looks
>> like it can do non-channelized connections, right? Need to consolidate down
>> some non-fractional/channelized T1s...
>
> I have no experience with the PA-MC-8T1, but we use a lot of MC-8E1s in
> our network. It can do "full rate" E1s (1984 time slots) and of course
> sub-rate. The total number of interfaces is limited to a number that I
> forgot, so you can't do 8 x 30 DS0 interfaces - what we did at the time
> was to run 6x full rate and 2x channelized E1s on them.
>
> Now for the FlexWAN: seriously reconsider whether you want to go there,
> or whether you want to get a used 7200 instead and just put it on top
> of the 6500, giving you 4 or 6 PA slots for the price of a single FlexWAN
> with two slots. The problem with the FlexWAN is not that it wouldn't work,
> but that Cisco has a nasty habit of discontinueing support for 6500 blades
> that are less-than-mainstream in new IOS trains - FlexWAN is already
> unsupported in most recent IOS versions (SXH, I think, dropped FW support)
> and you would need to use "enhanced FlexWAN".
>
> (I certainly can understand that old hardware needs to die at some point,
> but if all you have is a 6500, and you need SXH/SXI to support one half
> of your hardware, and 'no more recent than SXF' to support the *other*
> half, you're sort of stuck in "I hate Cisco" land. If you have multiple
> baskets, it's much easier to balance IOS reality vs. real world needs)
>
> ((I also think the FlexWAN was a very nice idea. Fortunately enough,
> for the longest time it was just too expensive to be more interesting
> than "just get another 7200" - and when we saw that it was already being
> dropped, we congratulated ourselves for not having fallen into every single
> 6500 BU trap))
>
> gert

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

dudepron at gmail

Nov 26, 2009, 6:30 PM

Post #4 of 8 (648 views)
Permalink

Re: PA-MC-8T1 [In reply to]

It can do what you want. T1 or DS0s.

Aaron

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 21:11, Graham Wooden <graham [at] g-rock> wrote:

> Gert, good thinking. I keep forgetting about the c7200 platform.
> There are some good deals on ones with the NPE200s in them. Heck, cheap
> enough to have a spare ...
>
> Thanks again and take care,
>
> -graham
>
>
> On 11/26/09 12:08 PM, "Gert Doering" <gert [at] greenie> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:09:12PM -0600, Graham Wooden wrote:
> >> Just wanted to confirm before I spend the money ....
> >>
> >> I am looking at the WAN card PA-MC-8T1 for some T1 aggregation points,
> >> inserted into FlexWAN/6500. As I am reading the data sheet for it, it
> looks
> >> like it can do non-channelized connections, right? Need to consolidate
> down
> >> some non-fractional/channelized T1s...
> >
> > I have no experience with the PA-MC-8T1, but we use a lot of MC-8E1s in
> > our network. It can do "full rate" E1s (1984 time slots) and of course
> > sub-rate. The total number of interfaces is limited to a number that I
> > forgot, so you can't do 8 x 30 DS0 interfaces - what we did at the time
> > was to run 6x full rate and 2x channelized E1s on them.
> >
> > Now for the FlexWAN: seriously reconsider whether you want to go there,
> > or whether you want to get a used 7200 instead and just put it on top
> > of the 6500, giving you 4 or 6 PA slots for the price of a single FlexWAN
> > with two slots. The problem with the FlexWAN is not that it wouldn't
> work,
> > but that Cisco has a nasty habit of discontinueing support for 6500
> blades
> > that are less-than-mainstream in new IOS trains - FlexWAN is already
> > unsupported in most recent IOS versions (SXH, I think, dropped FW
> support)
> > and you would need to use "enhanced FlexWAN".
> >
> > (I certainly can understand that old hardware needs to die at some point,
> > but if all you have is a 6500, and you need SXH/SXI to support one half
> > of your hardware, and 'no more recent than SXF' to support the *other*
> > half, you're sort of stuck in "I hate Cisco" land. If you have multiple
> > baskets, it's much easier to balance IOS reality vs. real world needs)
> >
> > ((I also think the FlexWAN was a very nice idea. Fortunately enough,
> > for the longest time it was just too expensive to be more interesting
> > than "just get another 7200" - and when we saw that it was already being
> > dropped, we congratulated ourselves for not having fallen into every
> single
> > 6500 BU trap))
> >
> > gert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

gert at greenie

Nov 26, 2009, 11:32 PM

Post #5 of 8 (659 views)
Permalink

Re: PA-MC-8T1 [In reply to]

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 08:11:28PM -0600, Graham Wooden wrote:
> Gert, good thinking. I keep forgetting about the c7200 platform.
> There are some good deals on ones with the NPE200s in them. Heck, cheap
> enough to have a spare ...

Watch out. The NPE200 is unsupported since a long time, so "recent IOS"
will definitely complain about being unsupported, and might not work
correctly.

As far as I understand, the NPE225 is still supported (because it's the
fastest NPE for the non-VXR platform) and the NPE400/NPE-G1/NPE-G2 on
the VXR. Not 100% sure about the NPE400.

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net

mtinka at globaltransit

Nov 27, 2009, 2:37 AM

Post #6 of 8 (649 views)
Permalink

Re: PA-MC-8T1 [In reply to]

On Friday 27 November 2009 03:32:40 pm Gert Doering wrote:

> As far as I understand, the NPE225 is still supported
> (because it's the fastest NPE for the non-VXR platform)
> and the NPE400/NPE-G1/NPE-G2 on the VXR. Not 100% sure
> about the NPE400.

The NPE-400 was recently announced for EoS/EoL for the non-
security bundles on the 7200-VXR as well as the uBR7200. Not
sure if that means they are no longer supported on the 7200-
VXR.

Cheers,

Mark.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.82 KB)

lists at hojmark

Nov 27, 2009, 3:45 AM

Post #7 of 8 (644 views)
Permalink

Re: PA-MC-8T1 [In reply to]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:37:25 +0800, you wrote:

> The NPE-400 was recently announced for EoS/EoL for the non-
> security bundles on the 7200-VXR as well as the uBR7200. Not
> sure if that means they are no longer supported on the 7200-
> VXR.

Yeah, the NPE-400 itself is announced EoS too:
https://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps341/eol_c51_556152.html

But it *is* still supported (see dates in the above).

-A
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

howard at leadmon

Nov 28, 2009, 9:02 AM

Post #8 of 8 (632 views)
Permalink

Re: PA-MC-8T1 [In reply to]

I actually have a 6509 with a FlexWAN controller in it, with a PA-MC-8T1 in
one side, and a DS3 card in the other, it works fine! You can run
channelized or non-channelized, we run our links as full out T1's so no
channelization for us. So yep, as long as you get an IOS that supports it,
you will be fine...

---
Howard Leadmon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Graham Wooden
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 11:09 PM
> To: cisco-nsp
> Subject: [c-nsp] PA-MC-8T1
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just wanted to confirm before I spend the money ....
>
> I am looking at the WAN card PA-MC-8T1 for some T1 aggregation points,
> inserted into FlexWAN/6500. As I am reading the data sheet for it, it
> looks
> like it can do non-channelized connections, right? Need to consolidate
> down
> some non-fractional/channelized T1s...
>
> Thanks,
>
> -graham
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads