What routers do folks use these days?

Pete Lumbis alumbis at gmail.com
Wed Dec 11 14:21:27 UTC 2013


Even with a single chip architecture the overall scale performance is WAY
better than Sup720. Hell, even RSP720 was a huge improvement in scale

I know the question was specifically about CPU but Sup2T is also a
different forwarding ASIC allowing it to do natively things Sup720
couldn't, like VPLS and EVC

I would agree that Sup2t wouldn't be my first choice in ISP Edge. From
Cisco, ASR9k or ASR1k depending on bandwidth needs.

-Pete

disclaimer: I work for Cisco.


On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se
> >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 swm.pp.se
> >
> --
> -JH
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list