"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> In this case, to keep costs low, I'd consider, in order,
>
> 1. Use a 2600 to do all inter-VLAN routing
> 2. Use a 3600 to do it a little faster
> 3. I don't know the most recent support for external path
> determination -- used to be that the 4500/4700 was the
> lowest platform. Probably a 3600 can these days. Use a
> 3600 as path determination engine and an NFFC or equivalent
> on the switch platform(s).
> 4. Use an RSM/NFFC or equivalent.
> 5. Use a 10000/12000, etc., for very heavy routing loads with
> multiple WAN interfaces. A 7200 or 7500 might be
> appropriate in some cases
Oddly enough, we run the opposite scenario, only having a bit over a
half-dozen DS1 WAN links, but 20+ internal VLANs/subnets. We have the
big guns (7500/4500M) doing ISL router-on-a-stick trunks to a 5500 with
NFFC-IIs (yes, we route IPX/AT/MCast locally) over 100Mb FE links (or in
the 7500 case, a 2-port Fast Etherchannel link) to handle VLAN route
determination. No RSM in the 5500, only the NFFC-IIs.
The border is handled by 2 2621s and a 3640. I "thought" that the
bandwidth demands would dictate, but lo and behold, the 3640 has the
highest processor utilization (30-60%) pushing 4 DS1s than anything
else, but then it is doing policy routing, NAT, ingress/egress
filtering, and the works.
I suppose I should rethink this (although the 7500 has no serials).
It was appropriate before the NFFC-IIs and MLS, but now that seems to
have alleviated the bulk of the router demands. I still can't see a
10000/12000 pushing a few DS1s, but perhaps the 7500 should be moved?
Thanks for the insight, Howard.
Jeff Kell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
