On Sat Jan 17, 2015 at 11:57:21AM +0200, Chris Knipe wrote: > > Depends on your total traffic requirements. SUP720 + 6704 + 6748-GE-TX > > (+ 6724-SFP if I need fibre) is still my work-horse of choice for a Cisco > > switch offering both 10G and 1G ports. On the used market, these blades are > > available very cheaply. > > This is what I really like (and hoped) to hear. Considering we're > currently peaking at 1.2Gbps / 1.5Gbps, a ~10X increase in > capacity/throughput seems like a winner then. Granted (as I > understand it), from a layer III point of view this configuration > would be significantly under spec'ed to provide what it is supposed > to, but on a layer II level it seems (to me at least) that it would be > able to deliver a -significant- upgrade to what we currently can > deliver on our infrastructure...
I'm doing L3 on my 6500's, so I do use the 3BXL to be able to hold a full Internet routing table. There's little difference between L2 and L3 performance on the 6500. We're now upgrading to the Sup2T and 69xx cards to give us higher 10G port density. > The 25-30Gbps you are seeing - is this across one line card, or across > the entire chassis? Just trying to get an idea of what two or three > 4-Port 10GE cards would do. That's per 6704 card. In aggregate, we were probably doing close to 100Gbps of traffic through a 6509 chassis, but only because traffic was flowing over it several times. Simon _______________________________________________ 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/
