Mailing List Archive: Cisco: NSP

WS-X6708-10G-3C and 3CXL and SUP720-3BXL

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

lee.t.starnes at gmail

Jun 12, 2012, 1:55 PM

Post #1 of 5 (704 views)
Permalink

WS-X6708-10G-3C and 3CXL and SUP720-3BXL

Hello,

I was reading on the Cisco site that the WS-X6708-10G-3C and 3CXL are
compatible with the SUP720-3BXL and will operate normally. I was wondering
if anyone has done this and what the performance is like. I would hate to
upgrade our SUPs if I don't have to as they are working just fine.

These would be in 6509 chassis.

Thanks,

Lee
_______________________________________________
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/

aledm at qix

Jun 12, 2012, 2:07 PM

Post #2 of 5 (688 views)
Permalink

Re: WS-X6708-10G-3C and 3CXL and SUP720-3BXL [In reply to]

On 12 June 2012 21:55, Lee Starnes <lee.t.starnes [at] gmail> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I was reading on the Cisco site that the WS-X6708-10G-3C and 3CXL are
> compatible with the SUP720-3BXL and will operate normally. I was wondering
> if anyone has done this and what the performance is like. I would hate to
> upgrade our SUPs if I don't have to as they are working just fine.
>
>
It depends on your traffic mix but mixing 3B and 3C PFCs in the same
chassis will work fine (we have this configuration no problem)

The system will operate as if only 3B is deployed so you won't get 3C
benefits (not that i think there are that many.)

You don't want to get on the upgrade treadmill - the Sup720-3B is End of
Sale so you could go VS720-10G-3C, but given the (much better) Sup-2T is
the same price, you might be tempted to go with that, but then you'd need
to upgrade your 6708 line cards, and so on and so on...

Aled
_______________________________________________
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/

lee.t.starnes at gmail

Jun 12, 2012, 2:53 PM

Post #3 of 5 (677 views)
Permalink

Re: WS-X6708-10G-3C and 3CXL and SUP720-3BXL [In reply to]

Fantastic! That is what I was looking for.

Thanks Joe.

-Lee

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Joe Hamby <johamby [at] blomand> wrote:

> **
> I just put a 3cxl 6708 in a 7600 this morning.
>
> it operates at the 3bxl rates
>
> 1 48 CEF720 48 port 1000mb SFP WS-X6748-SFP
> 2 48 CEF720 48 port 1000mb SFP WS-X6748-SFP
> 3 8 CEF720 8 port 10GE with DFC WS-X6708-10GE
> 5 2 Supervisor Engine 720 (Active) WS-SUP720-3BXL
> 6 2 Supervisor Engine 720 (Hot) WS-SUP720-3BXL
>
>
> 1 Distributed Forwarding Card WS-F6700-DFC3BXL SAL11402RL6 5.3 Ok
> 2 Distributed Forwarding Card WS-F6700-DFC3BXL JAF1226ADEL 5.4 Ok
> 3 Distributed Forwarding Card WS-F6700-DFC3CXL SAL161288CF 1.7 Ok
> 5 Policy Feature Card 3 WS-F6K-PFC3BXL SAL1102DGJY 1.8 Ok
> 5 MSFC3 Daughterboard WS-SUP720 SAL1101CZST 2.6 Ok
> 6 Policy Feature Card 3 WS-F6K-PFC3BXL SAL1102DK9Y 1.8 Ok
> 6 MSFC3 Daughterboard WS-SUP720 SAL1102DNMK 2.6 Ok
>
>
> 00:00:36: DFC3: Currently running ROMMON from S (Gold) region
> Jun 12 06:31:11.772 CDT: %DIAG-SP-6-RUN_MINIMUM: Module 3: Running Minimal
> Diagnostics...
> Jun 12 06:31:33.697 CDT: %DIAG-SP-6-DIAG_OK: Module 3: Passed Online
> Diagnostics
> Jun 12 06:31:33.774 CDT: %OIR-SP-6-DOWNGRADE_EARL: Module 3 DFC installed
> is not identical to sy
> stem PFC and will perform at current system operating mode.
> Jun 12 06:31:34.550 CDT: %OIR-SP-6-INSCARD: Card inserted in slot 3,
> interfaces are now online
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2012 3:55 PM, Lee Starnes wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I was reading on the Cisco site that the WS-X6708-10G-3C and 3CXL are
> compatible with the SUP720-3BXL and will operate normally. I was wondering
> if anyone has done this and what the performance is like. I would hate to
> upgrade our SUPs if I don't have to as they are working just fine.
>
> These would be in 6509 chassis.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lee
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puckhttps://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/

lee.t.starnes at gmail

Jun 12, 2012, 2:57 PM

Post #4 of 5 (666 views)
Permalink

Re: WS-X6708-10G-3C and 3CXL and SUP720-3BXL [In reply to]

Thanks Aled. Yep, I would prefer not to get onto that upgrade treadmill at
this time. Everything is operating just fine with the 3BXLs, and until we
start to push more than 20G on these chassis, I would prefer to keep them
this way.

Thanks for the info.

-Lee

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Aled Morris <aledm [at] qix> wrote:

> On 12 June 2012 21:55, Lee Starnes <lee.t.starnes [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I was reading on the Cisco site that the WS-X6708-10G-3C and 3CXL are
>> compatible with the SUP720-3BXL and will operate normally. I was wondering
>> if anyone has done this and what the performance is like. I would hate to
>> upgrade our SUPs if I don't have to as they are working just fine.
>>
>>
> It depends on your traffic mix but mixing 3B and 3C PFCs in the same
> chassis will work fine (we have this configuration no problem)
>
> The system will operate as if only 3B is deployed so you won't get 3C
> benefits (not that i think there are that many.)
>
> You don't want to get on the upgrade treadmill - the Sup720-3B is End of
> Sale so you could go VS720-10G-3C, but given the (much better) Sup-2T is
> the same price, you might be tempted to go with that, but then you'd need
> to upgrade your 6708 line cards, and so on and so on...
>
> Aled
>
_______________________________________________
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/

petelists at templin

Jun 12, 2012, 8:57 PM

Post #5 of 5 (661 views)
Permalink

Re: WS-X6708-10G-3C and 3CXL and SUP720-3BXL [In reply to]

On 6/12/12 2:07 PM, Aled Morris wrote:

> The system will operate as if only 3B is deployed so you won't get 3C
> benefits (not that i think there are that many.)

Hopefully it's obvious that a mix of 3BXL and 3C means your system
operates as a 3B system. If you're carrying big/full tables, that's a
Problem(tm).

I believe the C "benefit" is an additional bit in the TCAM space to
track whether the destination is local or remote (for VSS applications).

pt

_______________________________________________
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