Mailing List Archive: Cisco: NSP

10G 6704 and 6708

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

mvanton at gmail

Oct 30, 2008, 10:23 PM

Post #1 of 6 (2237 views)
Permalink

10G 6704 and 6708

Hi,

im looking at 10G cards for 7600 with SUP720-3BXL (running SXF) and wanted
an opinion from the list

ive seen posts in archives and cisco datasheets and im aware of the
differences between the 6704 and 6708 (6708 comes with 3CXL, deeper buffers,
etc...). the port density on the 6708 (though not at line rate) is
attractive.

no fancy features or requirements here, just plain old lan switching

anyone cares to share experiences with these cards in production ?

Thanks,

anton
_______________________________________________
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/

ben.steele at internode

Oct 30, 2008, 10:38 PM

Post #2 of 6 (2214 views)
Permalink

Re: 10G 6704 and 6708 [In reply to]

Am currently using quite a few 6704's, some with DFC(at 3CXL spec), some
without.

Nothing fancy really going on, they just work, have some using CX4 and some
using long range fibre, of course we are on xenpaks rather than X2's with
the 6704.

The only issue i've had is a netflow bug when exporting from the DFC's
(CSCsq14299) but that got fixed in SRB4.

Haven't actually had one hit 10Gb yet so can't say how well they handle
congestion or really high traffic flows but certainly <5Gbs is no problem.

Ben

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of vince anton
Sent: Friday, 31 October 2008 3:54 PM
To: cisco-nsp
Subject: [c-nsp] 10G 6704 and 6708

Hi,

im looking at 10G cards for 7600 with SUP720-3BXL (running SXF) and wanted
an opinion from the list

ive seen posts in archives and cisco datasheets and im aware of the
differences between the 6704 and 6708 (6708 comes with 3CXL, deeper buffers,
etc...). the port density on the 6708 (though not at line rate) is
attractive.

no fancy features or requirements here, just plain old lan switching

anyone cares to share experiences with these cards in production ?

Thanks,

anton
_______________________________________________
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/

p.mayers at imperial

Oct 31, 2008, 2:48 AM

Post #3 of 6 (2211 views)
Permalink

Re: 10G 6704 and 6708 [In reply to]

vince anton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> im looking at 10G cards for 7600 with SUP720-3BXL (running SXF) and wanted
> an opinion from the list

Both seem to work fine in our 6500s using SXF10 (caveat - we're using
-3B/3C, not XL)

The QoS queueing model is different between 6704 and 6708. This had the
practical outcome in our case of preventing a port channel with on port
on a 6704 and one on a 6708.

6708s do not support VACL capture, which we are using (so a 6704 had to
stay in the box to run the ports we want to capture).

6708 are unsupported in 6503 or 7603 chassis.
_______________________________________________
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/

tstevens at cisco

Oct 31, 2008, 9:41 AM

Post #4 of 6 (2196 views)
Permalink

Re: 10G 6704 and 6708 [In reply to]

You can disable that check with "no mls qos channel-consistency".

Tim

At 02:48 AM 10/31/2008, Phil Mayers observed:
>The QoS queueing model is different between 6704 and 6708. This had
>the practical outcome in our case of preventing a port channel with
>on port on a 6704 and one on a 6708.

Tim Stevenson, tstevens [at] cisco
Routing & Switching CCIE #5561
Technical Marketing Engineer, Data Center BU
Cisco Systems, http://www.cisco.com
IP Phone: 408-526-6759
********************************************************
The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential*
and are intended for the specified recipients only.

_______________________________________________
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/

p.mayers at imperial

Oct 31, 2008, 10:48 AM

Post #5 of 6 (2210 views)
Permalink

Re: 10G 6704 and 6708 [In reply to]

Tim Stevenson wrote:
> You can disable that check with "no mls qos channel-consistency".

That's very useful to know.

Does it have any adverse effect or unwelcome implications?
_______________________________________________
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/

tstevens at cisco

Oct 31, 2008, 11:08 AM

Post #6 of 6 (2201 views)
Permalink

Re: 10G 6704 and 6708 [In reply to]

Clearly each port in the channel may treat the "same" traffic
differently, depending on how you configure the queuing for those
port types. If you are not using qos, then there should be no
functional difference.

Tim

At 10:48 AM 10/31/2008, Phil Mayers observed:
>Tim Stevenson wrote:
>>You can disable that check with "no mls qos channel-consistency".
>
>That's very useful to know.
>
>Does it have any adverse effect or unwelcome implications?

Tim Stevenson, tstevens [at] cisco
Routing & Switching CCIE #5561
Technical Marketing Engineer, Cisco Nexus 7000
Cisco Systems, http://www.cisco.com
IP Phone: 408-526-6759
********************************************************
The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential*
and are intended for the specified recipients only.

_______________________________________________
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