The other issue at hand is going to be route table size. If I recall correctly TCAM on the 2T is the same as the 720.
Sent from my mobile device, please excuse any typos. On Dec 9, 2012, at 5:45 AM, Tóth András <diosbej...@gmail.com> wrote: > Adrian, > > Inband channel (link to CPU) is a 1GE full-duplex link in both Sup720 and > Sup2T. > > Best regards, > Andras > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Adrian Minta <adrian.mi...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 12/09/12 07:10, Andrew Jones wrote: >> >>> Sup720 cpu is around 600mhz if i remember correctly, whilst sup2t is 1.5 >>> ghz dual core, so one would sup2t would handle this much better. Also, >>> sup2t has much better CoPP capability with built in default config >>> templates, ready for you to tune if needed. >>> >>> >>> The CPU network interface is still 10mbps half duplex ? >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Adrian Minta >> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp> >> archive at >> http://puck.nether.net/**pipermail/cisco-nsp/<http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/> >> > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/