There are two pieces: control plane processing power and TCAM. Sup720 CPU can't really keep up with the average churn of the internet anymore. RSP720's and Sup2T CPUs can still keep up.
Both RSP720-3CXL and Sup2T-XL can support 1 million routes* *hardware implementation is different on these cards and how v4/v6 routes are shared in hardware storage is not the same. On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Jon Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > The Sup720-3bxl (and Sup2T and RSP720) will run out of tcam before the > "churn of [a couple of] full feeds" makes them non-viable. > > We're getting close to a repeat of 2008, where lots of 6500s (those still > running Sup2s) were inching up against their maximum supported routes when > dealing with full views. Sometime in the next year or so, the default > IPv4/IPv6 split on the best Sups you can get today are going run out of > IPv4 FIB TCAM. Some will tune (or already have tuned) the split to buy > another year or so, others will do so only after some head scratching when > their 6500s fall over. > > The question is, will cisco release a bigger FIB TCAM sup for the 6500, or > will they allow this product line to end its useful life as a full view > internet router in order to push people into ASRs or competitors' products? > > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Pete Lumbis wrote: > > Both Sup2t and RSP720 (to a lesser extent but still much better than >> Sup720) can handle the churn of full feeds. >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Tony Varriale <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> On 2/19/2013 2:57 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Eric A Louie wrote: >>>> >>>> I've run out of port capacity on my 7206VXR and need to go to "the next >>>> >>>>> router" >>>>> or put in another 7206VXR side-by-side. >>>>> >>>>> Any recommendations on what to use if I were to replace my existing >>>>> 7206VXR with >>>>> another chassis? (it's limited to 5 GB interfaces, and we need 7 or 8) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You've got to say more about what the router is doing and what you need >>>> from it. If it's routing for 8 1gb ethernets and doing full BGP routes, >>>> and nothing special, then a 6500 is an attractive option bang for your >>>> buck-wise. They're made for ethernet and comparitively cheap to keep >>>> adding ports to. >>>> >>>> Except when said 6500 sup CPU is asked to do BGP intensive stuff :) >>>> >>> >>> tv >>> >>> >>> ______________________________****_________________ >>> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>> https://puck.nether.net/****mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://puck.nether.net/**mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp> >>> <htt**ps://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/> >>> <http://**puck.nether.net/pipermail/**cisco-nsp/<http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/> >>> > >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> 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/> >> >> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------- > Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route > Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are > Atlantic Net | > _________ > http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/**pgp<http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp>for PGP > public key_________ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
