SV: What routers do folks use these days?

Andreas Larsen andreas.larsen at
Tue Dec 10 10:19:27 UTC 2013

Same here using MX routers and Brocade 
+1 for MX due to the "unix" shell =)

Med vänlig hälsning
Andreas Larsen
IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala |
Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysidia at] 
Skickat: den 10 december 2013 04:35
Till: Mikael Abrahamsson
Kopia: NANOG list; Jawaid Desktop
Ämne: Re: What routers do folks use these days?

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at>wrote:

> [snip]
+1 for  MX or  ASR 9000.

> Cisco ASR 9000, Juniper MX, Huawei NE40E, Alcatel-Lucent 7750, those 
> kinds of routers are the ones I hear people using. Some go for the new 
> Sup2T for the 6500, but I don't know how much more CPU it has compared 
> to your SUP/RSP720, perhaps someone else knows?

Cat6500 Sup720 was a platform that used  two separate processors;  1 Switch
Processor   CPU at 600mhz managing Layer 2 services, and 1 Route processor
CPU at 600MHz on the MSFC to run the Layer 3 services.  these were MIPS CPUs --- sr71000.

Cat650 Sup2T is shown as a single Dual core, 1.5GHz  per Core cpu.   There
is one processor stack on the 2T,  instead of two separate CPUs; since route processor and switch processor are now combined into one shared processing unit under the new "merged" architecture that runs only one IOS image,  that controls both RP and SP features ----  Layer 2,  Layer 3,  and management services  do not run on separate processors,  with their own separate hw anymore.

So the CPU is beefier --- but it is also now shared by multiple functions that previously had separate, isolated processing from one another.

I believe the Sup2T  are using a E500 PowerPC chip.
In any event,  neither old nor new are based on x86 architecture ---  keep in mind,  that comparison of MHz or GHz CPU frequency rates  is only meaningful within the same CPU architecture.

There are not significant increases in FIB TCAM,  or other important memory capacities from RSP720,  that you would expect to need  for  scalability to larger tables.

Even with 2T I would still describe  the 65xx as largely a great switching platform,  for  10/100/1000 aggregation -- due to limited chassis
bandwidth: its days would seem to be numbered once desktops are sporting 10
gigabit links:   definitely not (IMO) the best hardware router platform
 for  carrying large routing tables at the ISP edge, anyways.

> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at

More information about the NANOG mailing list