Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
On Monday, January 23, 2012 03:30:14 PM Jeff Bacon wrote: ... The Cat6k got its start as an L2 device. It was that until some bright boy decided to gut a 7200 NPE and glue it into the supervisor and create the MSFC. ... Just another $0.02 in the pot. :-) The Cat6k got its start as the Cat5k. The MSFC got its start as the RSFC for the Cat5k SupIIG (and later IIIG). Cat5k/SupIIIG+RSFC = something like Cat6k w/MSFC in hybrid mode with CatOS on the supervisor. (Source: Kennedy Clark's 'Cisco LAN Switching' from a long time ago plus my own experiences with currently running in production Cat5k hardware). The hardware is still doing what it needs to be doing, and doing it in this role more than adequately. And the RFI to our radiotelescopes has proven to be less than the RFI of our two 7609's. Anybody remember the MSM? :-) And I still have Cat5k's in production running RSM blades (RSM = 7500's RSP2 with a special interface to the Catalyst bus) and RSFC piggy's. (MSM = Catalyst 8510 SRP++, with bus interfacing, sort of). The Catalyst 5000 Supervisor Engine I had its EARL, long ago. I don't know where in Crescendo's history EARL got its start, but I would find that to be interesting reading. ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
Hi, On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 01:52:16PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: The Cat6k got its start as the Cat5k. The MSFC got its start as the RSFC for the Cat5k SupIIG (and later IIIG). Cat5k/SupIIIG+RSFC = something like Cat6k w/MSFC in hybrid mode with CatOS on the supervisor. (Source: Kennedy Clark's 'Cisco LAN Switching' from a long time ago plus my own experiences with currently running in production Cat5k hardware). Ah, the times. The RSFC actually came later, the RSM was before that - not a feature card for the Sup, but a full-sized 7500-RSP2 folded into a cat5k line card, talking to the rest of the sytem via a special internal trunk. Interesting enough, the RSM was supported in IOS 12.2, while the (much faster) RSFC died with 12.1 - which made a big difference for us at the time, since 12.2 brought 64bit SNMP counters, and without those, the (otherwise working) VLAN counters on the RSFC are fairly useless... gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de pgp5Ue48G9nZF.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 05:00:03 PM Gert Doering wrote: Hi, Hi, Gert I figured the RSFC reference would get a nod :-) Ah, the times. The RSFC actually came later, the RSM was before that - not a feature card for the Sup, but a full-sized 7500-RSP2 folded into a cat5k line card, talking to the rest of the sytem via a special internal trunk. Oh yes, fun cards. I have several of the 'non-VIP' cards and one with the VIP piggy-back. For quite a while I ran at one node an OC3 POS (using a bog-standard 7200-series PA-POS-OC3-SMI) link and a T1 (using a good old 8 port T1 PA) on the RSM+VIP in a Catalyst 5509; one box, did everything. Including NAT. Too bad something more modern than 12.2 on RSM or 12.1 on RSFC isn't available; they are nice little routers, IMHO. In one of the September free upgrade notices a couple or three years ago the last RSM IOS was an impacted version, so I got all ours up to, lessee: ... cr2-5505-rsm-slot-2 uptime is 1 year, 26 weeks, 3 days, 23 hours, 38 minutes ... System restarted at 23:01:52 UTC Fri Jul 23 2010 System image file is slot0:c5rsm-jk9o3sv-mz.122-46a.bin ... That one is one half of an HSRP pair for several VLAN's; the other half is in a 5509 halfway across campus. They of course share the dearth of certain features than 7500's have relative to 7200's (even the RSFC at 12.1 can do some things that the RSM at 12.2 cannot). That DMA VLAN trunk interface (C5IP) has some quirks, and is not the fastest thing in the world, but it beats trying to use say a 7507 with a couple of GEIP+'s (about the same effective throughput as the C5IP, in my experience). And MLS with the NFFC and NFFC-II has some nice assist and automation for the RSM. Interesting enough, the RSM was supported in IOS 12.2, while the (much faster) RSFC died with 12.1 - which made a big difference for us at the time, since 12.2 brought 64bit SNMP counters, and without those, the (otherwise working) VLAN counters on the RSFC are fairly useless... Yeah, tell me about it But the Cat6k and 6k5 are certainly distinct improvements, particularly in backplane bandwidth (32Gb/s versus 3.6Gb/s on 5500 and 1.2Gb/s on 5000) and port density. And I can even use my Cat8540 power supplies in some of the Cat6k chassis groan As Bob Hope would sing : 'thanks for the memories' ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:00:56 + From: Alessandra Forti alessandra.fo...@cern.ch Hi, I got some money to upgrade my network infrastructure from 1Gbps to 10Gbps. At the moment I have a cat6509E with a Sup720. This system has been working fine for 6 years. The upgrade will have to last a similar number of years and our main requirement is throughput with minimal routing if we are going to double the link to the outside world. My initial combination to support 16 racks at 10Gbps was to simply buy 4x6716-10T-3C blades and keep the Sup720. I then got enough money to upgrade the Sup720 to a Sup2T with (6816-10T-2T blades). I was wondering if this is really necessary or if the Sup720 will last that long i.e. another 6 years. I'm not an expert and would appreciate your comments if I go down this route because the alternative is to replace the 6509 altogether (most likely with a Force10 Z9000). OK. So, I'm a little late here, and it's not normally what I get into, but. What strikes me here is throughput with minimal routing. What is the 6500 actually _doing_? Is it doing primarily layer-2 with some VLAN SVIs and light layer-3 with some routing protocol? If that's the case, well, you could easily use a bunch of 6704s as one poster suggested to get a bunch of cheap line-rate ports, or use a 6716 and oversubscribe... But if it were me? I'd toss the 6500 entirely and get an Arista 7050. If you need more ports, then use a 40G aggregator and fan-out on 7050s. Or insert some other vendor that's doing 10G on commodity silicon here. (I'd also suggest ditching that idea of 10G-T and just go twinax. you can reach 7 meters or even more, and it's more reliable and draws way less power than 10G-T - not to mention error rates. The cables will cost you a bit more but overall it's worth it. Of course it depends on what you're using for TOR.) The Cat6k got its start as an L2 device. It was that until some bright boy decided to gut a 7200 NPE and glue it into the supervisor and create the MSFC. But we've come a long way since then. The Cat6500 at this point functionally resembles a very high throughput mid-range-capability switching router that happens to also be able to play a dumb L2/L3 switch when necessary. As an L2 or basic L3 switch, it's out-matched and out-classed. (IMO, so is the entire cat4k line, anymore, except in certain situations.) As a 10G L3 switch, it's massively out-classed. If that's all you want, buy something else. Your per-port cost for 10G is so high on a cat6500 that it's just ridiculous. The cat6k has graduated to being a high-touch device. MPLS, ATOM, QoS, Netflow (yes RD it's got flaws but it still HAS Netflow), complex configurations - got it. No, it's not an ASR9k. But it can do a fair bit of what an ASR9k can do for way less and with latency/mpps rates that an ASR9k could only dream of. It's in the middle somewhere. If you're not going to use any of those features, there's plenty of better cheaper alternatives than a cat6500. And it doesn't sound like the OP intends to. Myself - yes, I have a mesh of 6500s. Which, for any site with any density of hosts, immediately drops down into an Arista L3 dist/fan-out layer, because 10G ports are way cheaper on an Arista. The 6500s own the 10G MAN links and split the traffic out into its various layers, and really it breaks down to a single vs720/X6708 or sup2t/6908, and all the traffic lives on the plane of the 6x08 with maybe a 67xx-SFP feeding in some 1G traffic. Just another $0.02 in the pot. -bacon ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
Sup2T was because the Sup720 is already 6 years old and I don't know if it is going to last another 6 years. That's why I decided to ask on this thread. You all seem pretty enthusiast about it. On 21/01/2012 00:33, Phil Mayers wrote: On 01/20/2012 10:11 PM, Alessandra Forti wrote: The 6[78]16 cards are only 40g. Each 4 port group has 10g. We have some, and frankly they're a bit awkward because of this. the 6[78]16 are the only 10GBASE-T though and I'm trying to keep it simple. If you want it to last 6 years, I think buying the 6716 is the wrong call. If you do buy the 6716, the sup2T is overpowered. Maybe you need the new features, but you said throughput and minimal routing, so maybe not. If it were me, I would get a sup2T and 6908 linecards, and use a distribution switch with fibre uplinks and 10GbaseT ports down. The Extreme x650 is a very cheap option for the latter. My advice would be to think hard about 10GbaseT restriction though. ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
Hi, On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 02:23:24PM +, Jeff Bacon wrote: I love my 6500s. You'll pry 'em from my cold dead fingers. Unless someone really does show me something that can do what they do better. Heh :-) seconded. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de pgpLB20Q4E94h.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
On 01/20/2012 02:23 PM, Jeff Bacon wrote: So I don't. It makes for an interesting network in a way, because I am taking 2-3 layers and collapsing them all into one switch - but I can because the 6500 lets me, and lets me do it so trivially easy. We do much the same. I love my 6500s. You'll pry 'em from my cold dead fingers. Unless someone really does show me something that can do what they do better. We're about to roll the dice on that one... I'll let you know how it goes! The ITT is still in progress, and I got a lot of comments from vendors about damn these are hard requirements to meet. And yet most of them were a re-statement of the capabilities of the sup720... ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
Hi, I got some money to upgrade my network infrastructure from 1Gbps to 10Gbps. At the moment I have a cat6509E with a Sup720. This system has been working fine for 6 years. The upgrade will have to last a similar number of years and our main requirement is throughput with minimal routing if we are going to double the link to the outside world. My initial combination to support 16 racks at 10Gbps was to simply buy 4x6716-10T-3C blades and keep the Sup720. I then got enough money to upgrade the Sup720 to a Sup2T with (6816-10T-2T blades). I was wondering if this is really necessary or if the Sup720 will last that long i.e. another 6 years. I'm not an expert and would appreciate your comments if I go down this route because the alternative is to replace the 6509 altogether (most likely with a Force10 Z9000). thanks cheers alessandra On 20/01/2012 16:38, Phil Mayers wrote: On 01/20/2012 02:23 PM, Jeff Bacon wrote: So I don't. It makes for an interesting network in a way, because I am taking 2-3 layers and collapsing them all into one switch - but I can because the 6500 lets me, and lets me do it so trivially easy. We do much the same. I love my 6500s. You'll pry 'em from my cold dead fingers. Unless someone really does show me something that can do what they do better. We're about to roll the dice on that one... I'll let you know how it goes! The ITT is still in progress, and I got a lot of comments from vendors about damn these are hard requirements to meet. And yet most of them were a re-statement of the capabilities of the sup720... ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
Alessandra Forti alessandra.fo...@cern.ch wrote: Hi, I got some money to upgrade my network infrastructure from 1Gbps to 10Gbps. At the moment I have a cat6509E with a Sup720. This system has been working fine for 6 years. The upgrade will have to last a similar number of years and our main requirement is throughput with minimal routing if The 6[78]16 cards are only 40g. Each 4 port group has 10g. We have some, and frankly they're a bit awkward because of this. I would seriously look into the 6908 cards if you want the throughput. -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and typos. ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
So, 2 slots for sup720's and fill the rest of the slots with 6704's and you can do 28 line rate 10G ports. Packet rate can get a bit dicey when it gets really high on the 6704's but other than that, fairly solid cards. Minimal routing means that you should be able to use that Sup720 for a while. --chip On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: Alessandra Forti alessandra.fo...@cern.ch wrote: Hi, I got some money to upgrade my network infrastructure from 1Gbps to 10Gbps. At the moment I have a cat6509E with a Sup720. This system has been working fine for 6 years. The upgrade will have to last a similar number of years and our main requirement is throughput with minimal routing if The 6[78]16 cards are only 40g. Each 4 port group has 10g. We have some, and frankly they're a bit awkward because of this. I would seriously look into the 6908 cards if you want the throughput. -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and typos. ___ 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/ -- Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
On 20.01.2012, at 21:14, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: Alessandra Forti alessandra.fo...@cern.ch wrote: Hi, I got some money to upgrade my network infrastructure from 1Gbps to 10Gbps. At the moment I have a cat6509E with a Sup720. This system has been working fine for 6 years. The upgrade will have to last a similar number of years and our main requirement is throughput with minimal routing if How far do you plan to expand in the next 6 years? I would use 6708s to connect DC rack switches for 16 racks you will want 32 ports due to port channel to each rack. I would consider buying a second 6509 sup 720 10g for failover purposes / alternatively VSS. The 6[78]16 cards are only 40g. Each 4 port group has 10g. We have some, and frankly they're a bit awkward because of this. I would seriously look into the 6908 cards if you want the throughput. Agreed - Don't all the cards need to be replaced though if you want to run 80g full duplex to every card? Andrew ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
The 6[78]16 cards are only 40g. Each 4 port group has 10g. We have some, and frankly they're a bit awkward because of this. the 6[78]16 are the only 10GBASE-T though and I'm trying to keep it simple. cheers alessandra ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
How far do you plan to expand in the next 6 years? We currently have 10 racks and planning to add another two in the next 3 months. Considering the density of cpu power is increasing I calculated around 16 racks in the next 6 years. The rack switches will also be 10GBASE-T. This allows me more flexibility during the upgrade because I don't have to do a big bang upgrade since they are auto-negotiating. ___ 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/
Re: [c-nsp] in praise of the cat6500 Re: Flow tools
On 01/20/2012 10:11 PM, Alessandra Forti wrote: The 6[78]16 cards are only 40g. Each 4 port group has 10g. We have some, and frankly they're a bit awkward because of this. the 6[78]16 are the only 10GBASE-T though and I'm trying to keep it simple. If you want it to last 6 years, I think buying the 6716 is the wrong call. If you do buy the 6716, the sup2T is overpowered. Maybe you need the new features, but you said throughput and minimal routing, so maybe not. If it were me, I would get a sup2T and 6908 linecards, and use a distribution switch with fibre uplinks and 10GbaseT ports down. The Extreme x650 is a very cheap option for the latter. My advice would be to think hard about 10GbaseT restriction though. ___ 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/
