Mailing List Archive: Cisco: NSP

ASR 1002-F BGP table size

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

cnsp at shreddedmail

Mar 22, 2010, 10:30 AM

Post #1 of 7 (1455 views)
Permalink

ASR 1002-F BGP table size

I'm having a hard (impossible) time locating performance and BGP specs for
the ASR 1002-F. Since it has a "not really an ESP" built-in, the ESP5/10/20
specs aren't helping me a lot. Other than it should have ~2.5Gbs forwarding
(full-duplex?), I'can't find anything definitive on it. References keep
coming up with the ASR-1002 with the removable ESP.

I'm looking at replacing our upstream routers (7206-VXR/G1) on GigE links
with something that can better handle D/DoS attacks. The original thought
was to use a small 6500/Sup720. Empirical testing shows that Netflow (even
with the table size under control) really beats up on the SP CPU. The
ASR-1002F seems like it should fit the bill, but I found something (that
I've now lost) that mentioned 500K routes.

I'm looking for a device that:
- is a "lightbulb"; relatively inexpensive, single-upstream
- 3 GigE ports
- 1 Gbs full-duplex (2Gbs total) hardware forwarding
- uRPF
- Netflow
- 1,000,000+ IPv4 BGP routes
- IPv6 support

As an additional comment on the Sup720/Netflow, CPU on the SP hit ~30% with
only a couple hundred Mbs and roughly 50% TCAM utilization.

Is the ASR-1002F what I'm looking for? Can anybody direct me to 1002F (vs
modular 1002) specs?

Thanks,
_______________________________________________
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/

mounirmohammad at gmail

Mar 22, 2010, 6:39 PM

Post #2 of 7 (1398 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR 1002-F BGP table size [In reply to]

Hi Rick,

Here is a quick comparison.

The Cisco ASR 1002-F has RP1 with 1G RAM, ESP 2.5 with 1G RAM (2.5Gbps
bandwidth), SIP-10, 1SPA, and 4 GE ports built in chassis, running IOS-XE
and has SW redundancy via VM, capcable to have 500K IPv4 and 125K Ipv6

The Cisco ASR1002 has 1 RP1 integrated in the chassis comes with 4GB RAM by
default, 1 ESP slot for ESP5/10 to provide 5Gbps/10Gbps bandwidth, it also
has 4-built in GE-ports, 3 SPA ports, running IOS XE and has SW redundancy
via VM.

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Rick Ernst <cnsp [at] shreddedmail> wrote:

> I'm having a hard (impossible) time locating performance and BGP specs for
> the ASR 1002-F. Since it has a "not really an ESP" built-in, the
> ESP5/10/20
> specs aren't helping me a lot. Other than it should have ~2.5Gbs
> forwarding
> (full-duplex?), I'can't find anything definitive on it. References keep
> coming up with the ASR-1002 with the removable ESP.
>
> I'm looking at replacing our upstream routers (7206-VXR/G1) on GigE links
> with something that can better handle D/DoS attacks. The original thought
> was to use a small 6500/Sup720. Empirical testing shows that Netflow (even
> with the table size under control) really beats up on the SP CPU. The
> ASR-1002F seems like it should fit the bill, but I found something (that
> I've now lost) that mentioned 500K routes.
>
> I'm looking for a device that:
> - is a "lightbulb"; relatively inexpensive, single-upstream
> - 3 GigE ports
> - 1 Gbs full-duplex (2Gbs total) hardware forwarding
> - uRPF
> - Netflow
> - 1,000,000+ IPv4 BGP routes
> - IPv6 support
>
> As an additional comment on the Sup720/Netflow, CPU on the SP hit ~30% with
> only a couple hundred Mbs and roughly 50% TCAM utilization.
>
> Is the ASR-1002F what I'm looking for? Can anybody direct me to 1002F (vs
> modular 1002) specs?
>
> Thanks,
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>

--
Mounir Mohamed, CCIE No.19573(R&S, SP)
Senior Network Engineer, Core Team
NOOR Data Networks, SAE
http://mounirmohamed.wordpress.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mounirmohamed
_______________________________________________
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/

cnsp at shreddedmail

Mar 23, 2010, 5:48 AM

Post #3 of 7 (1467 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR 1002-F BGP table size [In reply to]

Ah. So I did remember the 500K IPv4 limit. :( Where did you find the docs
with the 500K limit.

Since it has 1GB RAM, the route limitation must be "somewhere else"?

I'll need to see how the 1002 (non-F) works out. Maybe sparing RP/ESP will
work out better than having a full spare chassis. Any other platform to
fill this role?

Thanks,

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Mounir Mohamed Ali <
mounirmohammad [at] gmail> wrote:

> Hi Rick,
>
> Here is a quick comparison.
>
> The Cisco ASR 1002-F has RP1 with 1G RAM, ESP 2.5 with 1G RAM (2.5Gbps
> bandwidth), SIP-10, 1SPA, and 4 GE ports built in chassis, running IOS-XE
> and has SW redundancy via VM, capcable to have 500K IPv4 and 125K Ipv6
>
> The Cisco ASR1002 has 1 RP1 integrated in the chassis comes with 4GB RAM by
> default, 1 ESP slot for ESP5/10 to provide 5Gbps/10Gbps bandwidth, it also
> has 4-built in GE-ports, 3 SPA ports, running IOS XE and has SW redundancy
> via VM.
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Rick Ernst <cnsp [at] shreddedmail> wrote:
>
>> I'm having a hard (impossible) time locating performance and BGP specs for
>> the ASR 1002-F. Since it has a "not really an ESP" built-in, the
>> ESP5/10/20
>> specs aren't helping me a lot. Other than it should have ~2.5Gbs
>> forwarding
>> (full-duplex?), I'can't find anything definitive on it. References keep
>> coming up with the ASR-1002 with the removable ESP.
>>
>> I'm looking at replacing our upstream routers (7206-VXR/G1) on GigE links
>> with something that can better handle D/DoS attacks. The original thought
>> was to use a small 6500/Sup720. Empirical testing shows that Netflow
>> (even
>> with the table size under control) really beats up on the SP CPU. The
>> ASR-1002F seems like it should fit the bill, but I found something (that
>> I've now lost) that mentioned 500K routes.
>>
>> I'm looking for a device that:
>> - is a "lightbulb"; relatively inexpensive, single-upstream
>> - 3 GigE ports
>> - 1 Gbs full-duplex (2Gbs total) hardware forwarding
>> - uRPF
>> - Netflow
>> - 1,000,000+ IPv4 BGP routes
>> - IPv6 support
>>
>> As an additional comment on the Sup720/Netflow, CPU on the SP hit ~30%
>> with
>> only a couple hundred Mbs and roughly 50% TCAM utilization.
>>
>> Is the ASR-1002F what I'm looking for? Can anybody direct me to 1002F (vs
>> modular 1002) specs?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mounir Mohamed, CCIE No.19573(R&S, SP)
> Senior Network Engineer, Core Team
> NOOR Data Networks, SAE
> http://mounirmohamed.wordpress.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mounirmohamed
>
_______________________________________________
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/

avayner at cisco

Mar 23, 2010, 6:29 AM

Post #4 of 7 (1411 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR 1002-F BGP table size [In reply to]

Rick,

As the ASR1K is a hardware based platform the route scale limitation
does not only come from the amount of RAM it has, but also from the
capacity of the ESP (forwarding plane).

If you are looking at sparing/redundancy, take a 2nd look at the
ASR1006... Or maybe just the ASR1004. The advantage of the modular
models is that as you need more forwarding plane capacity, you can
upgrade the RP/ESP modules, and gain dramatic performance boost.

You can find the details here:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps9343/data_sheet_c78
-450070.html

(For the 1002F, we use ESP2.5, which has, in general, 50% of the
capacity of a ESP5, hence the 500K IPv4 routes)

Arie

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Rick Ernst
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 14:49
To: Mounir Mohamed Ali
Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1002-F BGP table size

Ah. So I did remember the 500K IPv4 limit. :( Where did you find the
docs
with the 500K limit.

Since it has 1GB RAM, the route limitation must be "somewhere else"?

I'll need to see how the 1002 (non-F) works out. Maybe sparing RP/ESP
will
work out better than having a full spare chassis. Any other platform to
fill this role?

Thanks,

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Mounir Mohamed Ali <
mounirmohammad [at] gmail> wrote:

> Hi Rick,
>
> Here is a quick comparison.
>
> The Cisco ASR 1002-F has RP1 with 1G RAM, ESP 2.5 with 1G RAM (2.5Gbps
> bandwidth), SIP-10, 1SPA, and 4 GE ports built in chassis, running
IOS-XE
> and has SW redundancy via VM, capcable to have 500K IPv4 and 125K Ipv6
>
> The Cisco ASR1002 has 1 RP1 integrated in the chassis comes with 4GB
RAM by
> default, 1 ESP slot for ESP5/10 to provide 5Gbps/10Gbps bandwidth, it
also
> has 4-built in GE-ports, 3 SPA ports, running IOS XE and has SW
redundancy
> via VM.
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Rick Ernst <cnsp [at] shreddedmail>
wrote:
>
>> I'm having a hard (impossible) time locating performance and BGP
specs for
>> the ASR 1002-F. Since it has a "not really an ESP" built-in, the
>> ESP5/10/20
>> specs aren't helping me a lot. Other than it should have ~2.5Gbs
>> forwarding
>> (full-duplex?), I'can't find anything definitive on it. References
keep
>> coming up with the ASR-1002 with the removable ESP.
>>
>> I'm looking at replacing our upstream routers (7206-VXR/G1) on GigE
links
>> with something that can better handle D/DoS attacks. The original
thought
>> was to use a small 6500/Sup720. Empirical testing shows that Netflow
>> (even
>> with the table size under control) really beats up on the SP CPU.
The
>> ASR-1002F seems like it should fit the bill, but I found something
(that
>> I've now lost) that mentioned 500K routes.
>>
>> I'm looking for a device that:
>> - is a "lightbulb"; relatively inexpensive, single-upstream
>> - 3 GigE ports
>> - 1 Gbs full-duplex (2Gbs total) hardware forwarding
>> - uRPF
>> - Netflow
>> - 1,000,000+ IPv4 BGP routes
>> - IPv6 support
>>
>> As an additional comment on the Sup720/Netflow, CPU on the SP hit
~30%
>> with
>> only a couple hundred Mbs and roughly 50% TCAM utilization.
>>
>> Is the ASR-1002F what I'm looking for? Can anybody direct me to 1002F
(vs
>> modular 1002) specs?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mounir Mohamed, CCIE No.19573(R&S, SP)
> Senior Network Engineer, Core Team
> NOOR Data Networks, SAE
> http://mounirmohamed.wordpress.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mounirmohamed
>
_______________________________________________
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/

rdobbins at arbor

Mar 23, 2010, 6:31 AM

Post #5 of 7 (1390 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR 1002-F BGP table size [In reply to]

On Mar 23, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Rick Ernst wrote:

> Any other platform to
> fill this role?

ASR1K NetFlow is good - you get TCP flags, dropped traffic, can do sampling, et. al., which you don't get on the 76xx. You also get per-interface uRPF mode.

Another box would be a small GSR or CRS-1, but that's a leap upwards in price, of course.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins [at] arbor> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.

-- H.L. Mencken

_______________________________________________
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/

cnsp at shreddedmail

Mar 23, 2010, 7:00 AM

Post #6 of 7 (1435 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR 1002-F BGP table size [In reply to]

It looks like I need to look closer at the modular boxes. "ASR" was the
answer I kept seeing for the role, but the forwarding capacity of the
1002/4/6 (more specifically the ESP 5/10/20) was well beyond what I needed.

As a note, my network design does not have a capacity increase needed for
the role these boxes are in. They are essentially the peering/link
end-point for GigE upstream. By the time we grow to 10GE (rather than
additional GigE) links, we'll probably be on IPv7 and need new hardware
anyway. :)

Thanks,

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Arie Vayner (avayner) <avayner [at] cisco>wrote:

> Rick,
>
> As the ASR1K is a hardware based platform the route scale limitation
> does not only come from the amount of RAM it has, but also from the
> capacity of the ESP (forwarding plane).
>
> If you are looking at sparing/redundancy, take a 2nd look at the
> ASR1006... Or maybe just the ASR1004. The advantage of the modular
> models is that as you need more forwarding plane capacity, you can
> upgrade the RP/ESP modules, and gain dramatic performance boost.
>
> You can find the details here:
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps9343/data_sheet_c78
> -450070.html<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps9343/data_sheet_c78%0A-450070.html>
>
> (For the 1002F, we use ESP2.5, which has, in general, 50% of the
> capacity of a ESP5, hence the 500K IPv4 routes)
>
> Arie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Rick Ernst
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 14:49
> To: Mounir Mohamed Ali
> Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1002-F BGP table size
>
> Ah. So I did remember the 500K IPv4 limit. :( Where did you find the
> docs
> with the 500K limit.
>
> Since it has 1GB RAM, the route limitation must be "somewhere else"?
>
> I'll need to see how the 1002 (non-F) works out. Maybe sparing RP/ESP
> will
> work out better than having a full spare chassis. Any other platform to
> fill this role?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Mounir Mohamed Ali <
> mounirmohammad [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > Hi Rick,
> >
> > Here is a quick comparison.
> >
> > The Cisco ASR 1002-F has RP1 with 1G RAM, ESP 2.5 with 1G RAM (2.5Gbps
> > bandwidth), SIP-10, 1SPA, and 4 GE ports built in chassis, running
> IOS-XE
> > and has SW redundancy via VM, capcable to have 500K IPv4 and 125K Ipv6
> >
> > The Cisco ASR1002 has 1 RP1 integrated in the chassis comes with 4GB
> RAM by
> > default, 1 ESP slot for ESP5/10 to provide 5Gbps/10Gbps bandwidth, it
> also
> > has 4-built in GE-ports, 3 SPA ports, running IOS XE and has SW
> redundancy
> > via VM.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Rick Ernst <cnsp [at] shreddedmail>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm having a hard (impossible) time locating performance and BGP
> specs for
> >> the ASR 1002-F. Since it has a "not really an ESP" built-in, the
> >> ESP5/10/20
> >> specs aren't helping me a lot. Other than it should have ~2.5Gbs
> >> forwarding
> >> (full-duplex?), I'can't find anything definitive on it. References
> keep
> >> coming up with the ASR-1002 with the removable ESP.
> >>
> >> I'm looking at replacing our upstream routers (7206-VXR/G1) on GigE
> links
> >> with something that can better handle D/DoS attacks. The original
> thought
> >> was to use a small 6500/Sup720. Empirical testing shows that Netflow
> >> (even
> >> with the table size under control) really beats up on the SP CPU.
> The
> >> ASR-1002F seems like it should fit the bill, but I found something
> (that
> >> I've now lost) that mentioned 500K routes.
> >>
> >> I'm looking for a device that:
> >> - is a "lightbulb"; relatively inexpensive, single-upstream
> >> - 3 GigE ports
> >> - 1 Gbs full-duplex (2Gbs total) hardware forwarding
> >> - uRPF
> >> - Netflow
> >> - 1,000,000+ IPv4 BGP routes
> >> - IPv6 support
> >>
> >> As an additional comment on the Sup720/Netflow, CPU on the SP hit
> ~30%
> >> with
> >> only a couple hundred Mbs and roughly 50% TCAM utilization.
> >>
> >> Is the ASR-1002F what I'm looking for? Can anybody direct me to 1002F
> (vs
> >> modular 1002) specs?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mounir Mohamed, CCIE No.19573(R&S, SP)
> > Senior Network Engineer, Core Team
> > NOOR Data Networks, SAE
> > http://mounirmohamed.wordpress.com
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mounirmohamed
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

mounirmohammad at gmail

Mar 24, 2010, 2:50 AM

Post #7 of 7 (1390 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR 1002-F BGP table size [In reply to]

HI Rick,

Unfortunately you are limited to the vendor's portfolio, both giants (Cisco
and Juniper ) has similar portfolios.
Cisco ASR1002/4/6 and Juniper M71/M10 will provide you with multi-gig
bandwidth, if they do not meet your budget or it's beyond your bandwidth
needs you will fall back to a processing based routers like 7200 where there
is no Control/Forwarding planes separation and it is running monolithic IOS.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Rick Ernst <cnsp [at] shreddedmail> wrote:

> It looks like I need to look closer at the modular boxes. "ASR" was the
> answer I kept seeing for the role, but the forwarding capacity of the
> 1002/4/6 (more specifically the ESP 5/10/20) was well beyond what I needed.
>
> As a note, my network design does not have a capacity increase needed for
> the role these boxes are in. They are essentially the peering/link
> end-point for GigE upstream. By the time we grow to 10GE (rather than
> additional GigE) links, we'll probably be on IPv7 and need new hardware
> anyway. :)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Arie Vayner (avayner) <avayner [at] cisco
> >wrote:
>
> > Rick,
> >
> > As the ASR1K is a hardware based platform the route scale limitation
> > does not only come from the amount of RAM it has, but also from the
> > capacity of the ESP (forwarding plane).
> >
> > If you are looking at sparing/redundancy, take a 2nd look at the
> > ASR1006... Or maybe just the ASR1004. The advantage of the modular
> > models is that as you need more forwarding plane capacity, you can
> > upgrade the RP/ESP modules, and gain dramatic performance boost.
> >
> > You can find the details here:
> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps9343/data_sheet_c78
> > -450070.html<
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps9343/data_sheet_c78%0A-450070.html
> >
> >
> > (For the 1002F, we use ESP2.5, which has, in general, 50% of the
> > capacity of a ESP5, hence the 500K IPv4 routes)
> >
> > Arie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck
> > [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Rick Ernst
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 14:49
> > To: Mounir Mohamed Ali
> > Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1002-F BGP table size
> >
> > Ah. So I did remember the 500K IPv4 limit. :( Where did you find the
> > docs
> > with the 500K limit.
> >
> > Since it has 1GB RAM, the route limitation must be "somewhere else"?
> >
> > I'll need to see how the 1002 (non-F) works out. Maybe sparing RP/ESP
> > will
> > work out better than having a full spare chassis. Any other platform to
> > fill this role?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Mounir Mohamed Ali <
> > mounirmohammad [at] gmail> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Rick,
> > >
> > > Here is a quick comparison.
> > >
> > > The Cisco ASR 1002-F has RP1 with 1G RAM, ESP 2.5 with 1G RAM (2.5Gbps
> > > bandwidth), SIP-10, 1SPA, and 4 GE ports built in chassis, running
> > IOS-XE
> > > and has SW redundancy via VM, capcable to have 500K IPv4 and 125K Ipv6
> > >
> > > The Cisco ASR1002 has 1 RP1 integrated in the chassis comes with 4GB
> > RAM by
> > > default, 1 ESP slot for ESP5/10 to provide 5Gbps/10Gbps bandwidth, it
> > also
> > > has 4-built in GE-ports, 3 SPA ports, running IOS XE and has SW
> > redundancy
> > > via VM.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Rick Ernst <cnsp [at] shreddedmail>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm having a hard (impossible) time locating performance and BGP
> > specs for
> > >> the ASR 1002-F. Since it has a "not really an ESP" built-in, the
> > >> ESP5/10/20
> > >> specs aren't helping me a lot. Other than it should have ~2.5Gbs
> > >> forwarding
> > >> (full-duplex?), I'can't find anything definitive on it. References
> > keep
> > >> coming up with the ASR-1002 with the removable ESP.
> > >>
> > >> I'm looking at replacing our upstream routers (7206-VXR/G1) on GigE
> > links
> > >> with something that can better handle D/DoS attacks. The original
> > thought
> > >> was to use a small 6500/Sup720. Empirical testing shows that Netflow
> > >> (even
> > >> with the table size under control) really beats up on the SP CPU.
> > The
> > >> ASR-1002F seems like it should fit the bill, but I found something
> > (that
> > >> I've now lost) that mentioned 500K routes.
> > >>
> > >> I'm looking for a device that:
> > >> - is a "lightbulb"; relatively inexpensive, single-upstream
> > >> - 3 GigE ports
> > >> - 1 Gbs full-duplex (2Gbs total) hardware forwarding
> > >> - uRPF
> > >> - Netflow
> > >> - 1,000,000+ IPv4 BGP routes
> > >> - IPv6 support
> > >>
> > >> As an additional comment on the Sup720/Netflow, CPU on the SP hit
> > ~30%
> > >> with
> > >> only a couple hundred Mbs and roughly 50% TCAM utilization.
> > >>
> > >> Is the ASR-1002F what I'm looking for? Can anybody direct me to 1002F
> > (vs
> > >> modular 1002) specs?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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/
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mounir Mohamed, CCIE No.19573(R&S, SP)
> > > Senior Network Engineer, Core Team
> > > NOOR Data Networks, SAE
> > > http://mounirmohamed.wordpress.com
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mounirmohamed
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>

--
Mounir Mohamed, CCIE No.19573(R&S, SP)
Senior Network Engineer, Core Team
NOOR Data Networks, SAE
http://mounirmohamed.wordpress.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mounirmohamed
_______________________________________________
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