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