RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:01:48AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > That would depend what is causing the CPU usage. If it is software based > IP header lookups, you're not going to get any more peformance out of it > by trying to do more lookups than your CPU can handle. Surprisingly, that's usually not true. The cost of the IP header lookup is generally much less than the cost of a task switch. So when the system is at 100%, it's probably doing this: IP header lookup, wait for work / task switch, IP header lookup, wait for work / task switch, repeat As the load increases, it will start doing two IP header lookups before each task switch or yield. Then three. Then four. DS
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:01:48AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:44:20PM +0200, Tarko Tikan wrote: > > > hello! > > > > > What was your CPU utilization prior to the upgrade? > > > > Like always before the upgrade - 95% :) > > > > Currently on npe-g1 it's 80% on peak times with traffic numbers I > > mentioned before and 4500 online modems, 3000 cpe's > > CPU utilization on a software based router is not linear, said in a > different way, even when CPU hits 100% it can still forward > significantly faster. That would depend what is causing the CPU usage. If it is software based IP header lookups, you're not going to get any more peformance out of it by trying to do more lookups than your CPU can handle. If on the other hand the CPU usage is interrupt load, then yes forwarding rates could continue to go up even after the CPU hits 100% (assuming the priorities aren't such that you kill the rest of the box, routing protocols etc), at the expense of latency. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:44:20PM +0200, Tarko Tikan wrote: > hello! > > > What was your CPU utilization prior to the upgrade? > > Like always before the upgrade - 95% :) > > Currently on npe-g1 it's 80% on peak times with traffic numbers I > mentioned before and 4500 online modems, 3000 cpe's CPU utilization on a software based router is not linear, said in a different way, even when CPU hits 100% it can still forward significantly faster. /Jesper -- Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk - CCIE #5456 One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them.
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
At 12:39 AM 1/8/2004, Neil J. McRae wrote: > Hardware is probably cheaper on eBay than the maintenance fees anyway. You should be wary of purchasing second user Cisco equipment and their software license. Hardware is transferable but the Cisco software is not. If you are buying for replacement equipment and not build-out equipment, you *already* have Cisco software licenses for all the units in production, and could swap new (used) hardware in to replace damaged hardware without needing a new license. In that situation, buying used spares on eBay certainly can be cheaper than paying maintenance fees. jc
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:14:18PM -0600, Rob Healey wrote: > > For Juniper: ( You know who you are! ) > >Why not release an "Olive CD" with each new major JUNOS bump? It >wouldn't hurt to have every schmoe in the universe that can boot >a FreeBSD ISO also be competant in JUNOS! Place it as an iso download >in the software docs area. > >For the squemish in the legal dept. you could remove the code that >handles Juniper hardware from the distro and still have an excellent >CLI engine and minimal routing platform simulator. > >I bet if you passed out a stack of "Olive CD's" at a NANOG there would >be plenty of takers! I still think there is a market for low-end 100Mbps-only "PC routers" for which they could easily sell thousands of copies of JunOS without the jpfe package at $1000 a pop. Considering they actually managed to add hardware-less firewalling in 5.x, I'm still not entirely convinced that they aren't thinking the same thing. But alas, it's probably too innovative a concept, and might cut into the "stupid with too much money" M5 buying market a tiny bit. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> > Many interesting network solutions that have to be dismissed outright > > because of IOS limitations, weaknesses or bugs can be easily expressed > > in newer systems, not just JUNOS. > > Example, please. > Due to a barrage of e-mails I received on the subject I thought I'd send a generic reply to the list rather than try to cook up a plethera of examples on a one-to-one basis... First, if you haven't done so already, I suggest watching the Intro to JUNOS web training session on the juniper.net web site: http://www.juniper.net/training/elearning/junos_cli/index.html Next, the full docs for JUNOS are available without registration at http://www.juniper.net/techpubs For M series, click on the software link and pick the highest version listed their; 6.x would be the most current. Once you've looked at the training video and downloaded the docs you should be able to drill down to the areas that interst you most. The comprehensive index might be good to actually print out for handy reference. Some areas of interest might include: Group inheritance Using function/procedure invocation in policys Virtual router features; N logical routers in 1 box, more extensive than Redback contexts. Operational goodies: "Auto Chicken mode" - Basically the JUNOS config is a database and as such you commit changes. You can do an auto reverting commit that restores a known good config after N minutes if the candidate config isn't confirmed; i.e. "#$%#%#$, I just downed the infrastructure link on a remote router"... See "commit confirmed " for details. This feature has been rumored to have saved many a chicken hide! You can leave insane levels of debug turned on without killing the routing or forwarding engines. For Juniper: ( You know who you are! ) Why not release an "Olive CD" with each new major JUNOS bump? It wouldn't hurt to have every schmoe in the universe that can boot a FreeBSD ISO also be competant in JUNOS! Place it as an iso download in the software docs area. For the squemish in the legal dept. you could remove the code that handles Juniper hardware from the distro and still have an excellent CLI engine and minimal routing platform simulator. I bet if you passed out a stack of "Olive CD's" at a NANOG there would be plenty of takers! -Rob
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> A lot of your decision comes down to what you're going to be doing with the > box and when you expect your next jump from OC3 to OC12(or greater). Also, > you need to consider your comfort level with JUNOS vs IOS. If you're cool > with JUNOS then multiple M series boxes are worth investigating. Our > experience with them has been almost nothing but positive, plus they will > allow you to expand to greater than OC3, providing you with some future > proofing. > One additional data point is that due to excess forwarding resources its possible in JUNOS 6.x to condense many physical 760x and 750x down in to 1 or 2 M series using ithe virtual router capability. In a nutshell each virtual router is its own administrative domain so you can have different staff maintain different virtual routers on the same physical box. Fewer physical boxes might be an advantage for some. See release notes for JUNOS 6.x in the tech pubs area of the juniper.net web site for more details on virtual router features. -Rob
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
Ejay, Those would be Intel NICs. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ejay Hire Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:17 AM To: 'Alexei Roudnev'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Jeff Kell' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my! "used to be..." One could lay hands on a magic Cd that turned an ordinary PC with (Commonly available but the Brand Escapes me) Nics into a Juniper Olive that ran the full JunOS. It has disappeared, much to the disappointment of those of us that would love to use one to study for a cert/resume fodder. -Ejay > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Alexei Roudnev > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:51 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jeff Kell > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my! > > > > > > Many interesting network solutions that have to be > dismissed outright > > because of IOS limitations, weaknesses or bugs can be > easily expressed > > in newer systems, not just JUNOS. > > Example, please. > > (Agree with Jiniper OS for x86 - many people avoid Juniper > because do not > know it).
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Ejay Hire wrote: > "used to be..." One could lay hands on a magic Cd that > turned an ordinary PC with (Commonly available but the Brand > Escapes me) Nics into a Juniper Olive that ran the full > JunOS. It has disappeared, much to the disappointment of > those of us that would love to use one to study for a > cert/resume fodder. If one were searching for ISO images of such a thing, what would perhaps be some keywords to type into one's P2P application? Charles > -Ejay > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > Behalf Of Alexei Roudnev > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:51 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jeff Kell > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my! > > > > > > > > > > Many interesting network solutions that have to be > > dismissed outright > > > because of IOS limitations, weaknesses or bugs can be > > easily expressed > > > in newer systems, not just JUNOS. > > > > Example, please. > > > > (Agree with Jiniper OS for x86 - many people avoid Juniper > > > because do not > > know it). >
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
"used to be..." One could lay hands on a magic Cd that turned an ordinary PC with (Commonly available but the Brand Escapes me) Nics into a Juniper Olive that ran the full JunOS. It has disappeared, much to the disappointment of those of us that would love to use one to study for a cert/resume fodder. -Ejay > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Alexei Roudnev > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:51 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jeff Kell > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my! > > > > > > Many interesting network solutions that have to be > dismissed outright > > because of IOS limitations, weaknesses or bugs can be > easily expressed > > in newer systems, not just JUNOS. > > Example, please. > > (Agree with Jiniper OS for x86 - many people avoid Juniper > because do not > know it).
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
If you choose the 7600's I would highly recommend going with the Sup720's the price difference is not that great and they incorporate the SFM which gives you the option of running dCEF on your WAN cards. Scott C. McGrath On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Josh Fleishman wrote: > > Back to the original question.. > > A lot of your decision comes down to what you're going to be doing with the > box and when you expect your next jump from OC3 to OC12(or greater). Also, > you need to consider your comfort level with JUNOS vs IOS. If you're cool > with JUNOS then multiple M series boxes are worth investigating. Our > experience with them has been almost nothing but positive, plus they will > allow you to expand to greater than OC3, providing you with some future > proofing. > > 7600's have proven to be fine boxes, especially if you have need for > Ethernet port density at the same layer as your optical circuits. A lot of > feature support is going to depend on your supervisor/msfc selection. If > you go this route, and the coffers are full, check out the new(er) sup720's. > However, based on your ACL and Policing requirements, the Sup2/MSFC2 combo > should be sufficient. Also, keeping in mind the emergence of point to point > Ethernet solutions in the WAN/MAN (ie Metro Ethernet, and MPLS and L2TPv3 > pseudowires) keeping Ethernet at your edge might prove useful one day. > > The GSR, IMHO, is a higher tier box based on both it's scalability to OC192 > and cost. Since you're just going to OC3's now, I doubt the GSR will be > your best bet for the cost, but then again I haven't priced one out lately. > > If you're really pinching pennies, then check out upgrading your 7500's with > RSP8/16s and faster VIPs. But, if you're putting multiple OC3's on a box, > then your down links will likely start turning to GE. I'd stay away from > the GEIPs if possible. And for your 7200's, look into the NPG-G1 which have > line rate GE ports onboard. We've used them and they are pretty solid. A > head to head GRE bakeoff between the NPE-G1 and an RSP8(with dCEF) proved > the NPE to be far superior. > > Josh > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bcm > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my! > > > Hello all, > > I'm faced with a difficult decision. I work for a large multi-node > regional ISP (and Cisco shop). In our largest nodes we've found the Cisco > 7500 series routers to be at the end of their useful life due to the > throughput generated by POS OC-3 feeds and 10,000+ broadband users whose > traffic needs to be moved out of the node. Short of building a farm of > 7500's the need to upgrade seems clear. > > But where to go? The Cisco GSR platform seems a logical choice, but > their new 7600 series units are attractive for their cost. Juniper may also > have a place at this end of the processing spectrum. I'd also like to > ensure that the new platform supports doing CAR and ACLs at line rate, given > the client base. > > I wanted to see what other operators in this situation have done, so I > would appreciate anyone's input or insight into the pros and cons of these > platforms or any other ideas as to how I can grow beyond the Cisco 7500. >
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> 6 x DS3 cards are $750 on ebay; Anyone who uses that card in a production environment deserves all they get! :-) Regards, Neil.
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> Hardware is probably cheaper on eBay than the maintenance fees anyway. You should be wary of purchasing second user Cisco equipment and their software license. Hardware is transferable but the Cisco software is not. Regards, Neil.
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> > Many interesting network solutions that have to be dismissed outright > because of IOS limitations, weaknesses or bugs can be easily expressed > in newer systems, not just JUNOS. Example, please. (Agree with Jiniper OS for x86 - many people avoid Juniper because do not know it).
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
Back to the original question.. A lot of your decision comes down to what you're going to be doing with the box and when you expect your next jump from OC3 to OC12(or greater). Also, you need to consider your comfort level with JUNOS vs IOS. If you're cool with JUNOS then multiple M series boxes are worth investigating. Our experience with them has been almost nothing but positive, plus they will allow you to expand to greater than OC3, providing you with some future proofing. 7600's have proven to be fine boxes, especially if you have need for Ethernet port density at the same layer as your optical circuits. A lot of feature support is going to depend on your supervisor/msfc selection. If you go this route, and the coffers are full, check out the new(er) sup720's. However, based on your ACL and Policing requirements, the Sup2/MSFC2 combo should be sufficient. Also, keeping in mind the emergence of point to point Ethernet solutions in the WAN/MAN (ie Metro Ethernet, and MPLS and L2TPv3 pseudowires) keeping Ethernet at your edge might prove useful one day. The GSR, IMHO, is a higher tier box based on both it's scalability to OC192 and cost. Since you're just going to OC3's now, I doubt the GSR will be your best bet for the cost, but then again I haven't priced one out lately. If you're really pinching pennies, then check out upgrading your 7500's with RSP8/16s and faster VIPs. But, if you're putting multiple OC3's on a box, then your down links will likely start turning to GE. I'd stay away from the GEIPs if possible. And for your 7200's, look into the NPG-G1 which have line rate GE ports onboard. We've used them and they are pretty solid. A head to head GRE bakeoff between the NPE-G1 and an RSP8(with dCEF) proved the NPE to be far superior. Josh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bcm Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my! Hello all, I'm faced with a difficult decision. I work for a large multi-node regional ISP (and Cisco shop). In our largest nodes we've found the Cisco 7500 series routers to be at the end of their useful life due to the throughput generated by POS OC-3 feeds and 10,000+ broadband users whose traffic needs to be moved out of the node. Short of building a farm of 7500's the need to upgrade seems clear. But where to go? The Cisco GSR platform seems a logical choice, but their new 7600 series units are attractive for their cost. Juniper may also have a place at this end of the processing spectrum. I'd also like to ensure that the new platform supports doing CAR and ACLs at line rate, given the client base. I wanted to see what other operators in this situation have done, so I would appreciate anyone's input or insight into the pros and cons of these platforms or any other ideas as to how I can grow beyond the Cisco 7500.
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> Jon Lewis wrote: > Even comparing a VXR with NPE300 to a 7500 with RSP4 > and VIP2-50's, the 7206 will melt down and cease > functioning properly on traffic levels the 7500 > handles without breaking a sweat. Interestingly enough, the eBay prices reflect this: anything below an RSP4 or a VIP2-50 is useless junk good only for home or lab; recently bought a CX-EIP2 for $0.99 and a VIP2-40 for $50. CX-FSIPs and RSP2s go for peanuts too. However, a VIP2-50 or an RSP4 still go for 500 bucks a pop, which means they are still worthy of a production environment. As mentioned before, this is comparing apples and oranges anyway. Although this is overly simplified, the bottom line is that the NPE in a 7206 needs to do the job of the RSP _and_ 3 VIPs; no wonder why it will melt. Michel.
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Michel Py wrote: > > I've heard conflicting reports, is a 7206 faster at packet switching > > than a 7507? > > Greatly depends what's inside it. Sure, if your 7507 has an RSP2 (which > basically is a 3640 on a blade) and legacy (meaning, non-dcef) blades a > 7206 will beat the crud out of it. However, a loaded 7206 with a low-end > NPE can choke when the 7507 with an RSP16 and recent VIPs will sail > smoothly. Even comparing a VXR with NPE300 to a 7500 with RSP4 and VIP2-50's, the 7206 will melt down and cease functioning properly on traffic levels the 7500 handles without breaking a sweat. -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
If only dCEF wasn't phuqed in so many versions of the IOS. life would be wonderful. We had to turn dCEF off and just run plain old ip cef on our 7513 under 12.2.19a The RSP4 CPU spikes up to 80% then back down then UP and down... weird. Jason Frisvold wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Alex Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On the 7500, you have RSPs and VIPs; the former performing routing > > protocol work, vty's, RIB's, etc., the latter doing actually packet > > forwarding. > > While this sounds great on paper, our experience has us shying away from > dCEF and looking for something bigger and better... dCEF pushed the RSP > processor down to about 5%, but pushed up the VIP processors to about > 90-95%... > > > VIP-Slot0>sh proc c > > CPU utilization for five seconds: 13%/12%; one minute: 14%; five > minutes: > > 15% > > I wish we could get our routers to do this... > > > Obviously, we run dCEF, which puts the VIP's in the position of > forwarding > > everything on their own, as evidenced by the CPU measurements. > > But each VIP is responsible for it's own traffic, so if a particular VIP > runs most of the traffic, it has much higher CPU usage... In our case, > we have a router loaded with VIP 4-50's and Enhanced ATM OC-3 > adapters... Originally, we had a single OC-3 running about 120-130 Megs > constant and the VIP CPU was at 90-95% To combat this, we had to > put in additional OC-3 cards with additional VIPs and distribute the > load... Still, high CPU is a problem .. For instance : > > CPU utilization for five seconds: 63%/63%; one minute: 63%; five > minutes: 65% > 30 second input rate 78227000 bits/sec, 17858 packets/sec > 30 second output rate 47944000 bits/sec, 12778 packets/sec > > It seems to me that we should be able to do sooo much better... *sigh* > OC-12 adapters are an option, but they are rather expensive ... > > > However, to answer your question, even a modestly configured 7507 with > > RSP4, and VIP2-50's will be substantially more capable than a > 7206-NPE300. > > Things may change on the NPE-400 or G1, but I have no direct > experience > > with that. > > The G1 processors, so far, have proven to be wonderful... We only have > experience with them running in the 7200 uBR chassis, but they've shown > a huge reduction in CPU utilization... > > > PS. Regards to stability; we have SUBSTANTIAL improvements in IOS > > stability, especially in 12.3.5a mainline. > > Heh.. *old* Cisco code scares me enough... Bleeding edge is simply > terrifying... *sigh* > > > -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- > > --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net -- > > Jason Frisvold > Backbone Engineering Supervisor > Penteledata
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
What about longer term maintenance issues? Is the 7500 not scheduled for EOL from Cisco 'soon' ? So, purchasing 7500 bits that might be dropped by 'normal' Cisco support in 1 year versus purchasing some other hardware that will be in support longer might pay out in the longer term? Write an email-responder at [EMAIL PROTECTED] which replies with "Please upgrade to latest IOS first". Version 2.0 could give you ticket numbers and optionally request you to fill templates full of irrelevant information. Hardware is probably cheaper on eBay than the maintenance fees anyway. Pete
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
hello! > What was your CPU utilization prior to the upgrade? Like always before the upgrade - 95% :) Currently on npe-g1 it's 80% on peak times with traffic numbers I mentioned before and 4500 online modems, 3000 cpe's -- tarko
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Florian Weimer wrote: > Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote: > > Buying GSR's is probably the right replacement for 7500's if you want to > > stick with Cisco. > > But be careful when buying the linecards. Not all of them have > comparable forwarding performance to the 7500 if you do something else > than mere IP packet fowarding (e.g. ACLs or policy-based routing). Given that a GEIP in a 7500 can only do 200-300Mbps (packet load dependant), I hope the GSR can do better :) I have heard of instances where enabling inbound packet filtering or shaping on certain GigE cards would cause the cards to shutdown or reboot. I generally don't do shaping/etc on core gear, because its much easier to do it on my aggregation gear (2948G-L3/4908G-L3).
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
Ours dropped about 70% ... And it's been steady ever since.. we've added a large number of modems since that time as well... Look into 'no cable-arp' as well ... Basically, it prevents arp broadcasts and that also had a major impact on the cpu utilization of our CMTS's.. Jason Frisvold Backbone Engineering Supervisor Penteledata > -Original Message- > From: Tarko Tikan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my! > > > hello! > > > The G1 processors, so far, have proven to be wonderful... We only have > > experience with them running in the 7200 uBR chassis, but they've shown > > a huge reduction in CPU utilization... > > what is huge reduction for you? we upgraded from npe-400 to npe-g1 on > ubr7200 and processor usage decreased 20-30%. And we are pushing about > 100Mbps traffic from GigE to cable and about 20-30Mbps from cable to GigE. > > -- > tarko
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
Tarko, What was your CPU utilization prior to the upgrade? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tarko Tikan Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my! hello! > The G1 processors, so far, have proven to be wonderful... We only have > experience with them running in the 7200 uBR chassis, but they've shown > a huge reduction in CPU utilization... what is huge reduction for you? we upgraded from npe-400 to npe-g1 on ubr7200 and processor usage decreased 20-30%. And we are pushing about 100Mbps traffic from GigE to cable and about 20-30Mbps from cable to GigE. -- tarko
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
hello! > The G1 processors, so far, have proven to be wonderful... We only have > experience with them running in the 7200 uBR chassis, but they've shown > a huge reduction in CPU utilization... what is huge reduction for you? we upgraded from npe-400 to npe-g1 on ubr7200 and processor usage decreased 20-30%. And we are pushing about 100Mbps traffic from GigE to cable and about 20-30Mbps from cable to GigE. -- tarko
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> -Original Message- > From: Alex Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On the 7500, you have RSPs and VIPs; the former performing routing > protocol work, vty's, RIB's, etc., the latter doing actually packet > forwarding. While this sounds great on paper, our experience has us shying away from dCEF and looking for something bigger and better... dCEF pushed the RSP processor down to about 5%, but pushed up the VIP processors to about 90-95%... > VIP-Slot0>sh proc c > CPU utilization for five seconds: 13%/12%; one minute: 14%; five minutes: > 15% I wish we could get our routers to do this... > Obviously, we run dCEF, which puts the VIP's in the position of forwarding > everything on their own, as evidenced by the CPU measurements. But each VIP is responsible for it's own traffic, so if a particular VIP runs most of the traffic, it has much higher CPU usage... In our case, we have a router loaded with VIP 4-50's and Enhanced ATM OC-3 adapters... Originally, we had a single OC-3 running about 120-130 Megs constant and the VIP CPU was at 90-95% To combat this, we had to put in additional OC-3 cards with additional VIPs and distribute the load... Still, high CPU is a problem .. For instance : CPU utilization for five seconds: 63%/63%; one minute: 63%; five minutes: 65% 30 second input rate 78227000 bits/sec, 17858 packets/sec 30 second output rate 47944000 bits/sec, 12778 packets/sec It seems to me that we should be able to do sooo much better... *sigh* OC-12 adapters are an option, but they are rather expensive ... > However, to answer your question, even a modestly configured 7507 with > RSP4, and VIP2-50's will be substantially more capable than a 7206-NPE300. > Things may change on the NPE-400 or G1, but I have no direct experience > with that. The G1 processors, so far, have proven to be wonderful... We only have experience with them running in the 7200 uBR chassis, but they've shown a huge reduction in CPU utilization... > PS. Regards to stability; we have SUBSTANTIAL improvements in IOS > stability, especially in 12.3.5a mainline. Heh.. *old* Cisco code scares me enough... Bleeding edge is simply terrifying... *sigh* > -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- > --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net -- Jason Frisvold Backbone Engineering Supervisor Penteledata
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > They recently refreshed the platform with RSP16, VIP8, and MX. It's still > a viable platform for many medium size providers. As an exercise see if you can determine when this 7513: http://noc.ilan.net.il/stats/ILAN-CPU/new-gp-cpu.html swapped from an RSP8 to an RSP16 in the past 2 months. > I personally wouldn't use it for anything passing more than a couple > hundred megs (at absolute most), but we have plenty of nodes like that. > Actually, we've been seeing a trend where we are replacing 4700's with > 7505/7's. Moves about 400Mb/sec. -Hank
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> > Never under any condition let anyone tell you that Juniper is perfect... > > But, as everyone that uses both will tell you, it is "better" (at most > > things). > > They tend to be (in our experience) a "set it and forget it" thing, > while you can spend considerable time tweaking your Cisco; but > admittedly ours is just an M5 edge (two gig-Es into an OC48). The rest > of our gear is Cisco, and yes, we draw straws to see who has to mess > with the Juniper when it has to be messed with. > If you can set aside time to study JUNOS a bit perhaps the straw draws won't be necessary! Although you are correct about the "set and forget" nature of JUNOS vs other platforms, especially when the larger DDOS's hit... The 1980's origin of IOS becomes clear when you look at more modern systems like JUNOS, especially if you've had structured and/or object oriented programming. Many interesting network solutions that have to be dismissed outright because of IOS limitations, weaknesses or bugs can be easily expressed in newer systems, not just JUNOS. If you have the time to give them a look, the non-IOS systems have ALOT to offer in terms of expressing new/innovative ways to solve networking design/arch problems. Its too bad Juniper never released the old "Olive" JUNOS's for general download; they worked on stock x86 hardware with Intel and 3com(?) ethernet interfaces. They were GREAT for learning JUNOS on. Maybe Juniper will rethink that decision for marketing gains of exposing more people to JUNOS? -Rob
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
>> Christopher L. Morrow wrote: >> What about longer term maintenance issues? Is the >> 7500 not scheduled for EOL from Cisco 'soon' ? So, >> purchasing 7500 bits that might be dropped by >> 'normal' Cisco support in 1 year versus purchasing >> some other hardware that will be in support longer >> might pay out in the longer term? See below, I'm mostly talking about no throwing away what you already have; eBay is good for spares (a router sitting in a warehouse does not need software) and line cards, no more. Long-term support: as pointed out recently, I would be more comfortable with a 7500 without support vs. a 7600 with support as of today, the reason being I already know the tricks the 7500 is going to throw at me (mostly). > Drew Weaver wrote: > Well technically buying a used 7500 doesn't entitle you > to run IOS on it, so you need to re-license the Ebay > Special and that usually costs close to what a new 7500 > would cost. True, but I'm not talking about buying a new router on eBay, I'm talking about using what lots of us already have (a bunch of 7500s) that are already paid for and legally licensed. As you unrack some of the 7500s out of production, you take them out of smartnet but don't throw them away: you keep them as spares, which allows you to take the production 7500s out of the 4hour/365 smartnet to put them on support-only maintenance. That's what I call free (it's not exactly, but close): router paid for already and el-cheapo contract on it. > I've heard conflicting reports, is a 7206 faster > at packet switching than a 7507? Greatly depends what's inside it. Sure, if your 7507 has an RSP2 (which basically is a 3640 on a blade) and legacy (meaning, non-dcef) blades a 7206 will beat the crud out of it. However, a loaded 7206 with a low-end NPE can choke when the 7507 with an RSP16 and recent VIPs will sail smoothly. Michel.
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> close to what a new 7500 would cost. Anyway, on to the reason for my post. > I've heard conflicting reports, is a 7206 faster at packet switching than a > 7507? > > Some people tell me it is a better router, some people tell me it > isn't. Does an apple taste better than an orange? 7206 is a fixed CPU config (hold: i know, NPE's are interchangeable, however, once you have an NPE-300 or whatever in there, thats all the CPU you are going to have in it). Another words, no matter how many PAs you shove into it, it's still a NPE-whatever driving the whole thing. On the 7500, you have RSPs and VIPs; the former performing routing protocol work, vty's, RIB's, etc., the latter doing actually packet forwarding. For instance, one of our 7507's, an RSP4 with 3 VIP2-50's, routing some ATM, DS3, ChDS3, FE, and doing some MPLS AToM: core2.sne# sho proc c CPU utilization for five seconds: 4%/2%; one minute: 12%; five minutes: 12% Most of the CPU utilization is Mr. BGP Scanner, our friend and yours. Notice the /2%, informing you that this thing is barely doing any packet forwarding. VIP-Slot0>sh proc c CPU utilization for five seconds: 13%/12%; one minute: 14%; five minutes: 15% VIP-Slot1>sh proc c CPU utilization for five seconds: 1%/1%; one minute: 1%; five minutes: 1% VIP-Slot4>sh proc c CPU utilization for five seconds: 7%/4%; one minute: 5%; five minutes: 5% Obviously, we run dCEF, which puts the VIP's in the position of forwarding everything on their own, as evidenced by the CPU measurements. However, to answer your question, even a modestly configured 7507 with RSP4, and VIP2-50's will be substantially more capable than a 7206-NPE300. Things may change on the NPE-400 or G1, but I have no direct experience with that. PS. Regards to stability; we have SUBSTANTIAL improvements in IOS stability, especially in 12.3.5a mainline. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> > not trying to defend the 7500 platform, it's obsolete all right. > > However, free is music to my ears. > > What about longer term maintenance issues? Is the 7500 not scheduled for > EOL from Cisco 'soon' ? So, purchasing 7500 bits that might be dropped by > 'normal' Cisco support in 1 year versus purchasing some other hardware > that will be in support longer might pay out in the longer term? They recently refreshed the platform with RSP16, VIP8, and MX. It's still a viable platform for many medium size providers. I personally wouldn't use it for anything passing more than a couple hundred megs (at absolute most), but we have plenty of nodes like that. Actually, we've been seeing a trend where we are replacing 4700's with 7505/7's. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Neil J. McRae wrote: > > > There still is the issue of cost though. GSR line cards are not cheap. > > Hence my point about them not being an access router :-) ... except, they are. 6 x DS3 cards are $750 on ebay; 4 x OC12 cards are $4k. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Michel Py wrote: > not trying to defend the 7500 platform, it's obsolete all right. > However, free is music to my ears. What about longer term maintenance issues? Is the 7500 not scheduled for EOL from Cisco 'soon' ? So, purchasing 7500 bits that might be dropped by 'normal' Cisco support in 1 year versus purchasing some other hardware that will be in support longer might pay out in the longer term? --- Well technically buying a used 7500 doesn't entitle you to run IOS on it, so you need to re-license the Ebay Special and that usually costs close to what a new 7500 would cost. Anyway, on to the reason for my post. I've heard conflicting reports, is a 7206 faster at packet switching than a 7507? Some people tell me it is a better router, some people tell me it isn't. Feh. -Drew
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Michel Py wrote: > not trying to defend the 7500 platform, it's obsolete all right. > However, free is music to my ears. What about longer term maintenance issues? Is the 7500 not scheduled for EOL from Cisco 'soon' ? So, purchasing 7500 bits that might be dropped by 'normal' Cisco support in 1 year versus purchasing some other hardware that will be in support longer might pay out in the longer term? Of course, free is nice :) Free and no support is a problem for some folks... -Chris
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> There still is the issue of cost though. GSR line cards are not cheap. Hence my point about them not being an access router :-) > I would put 10mbps Ethernet and possibly DS3 in the same pool as E1/T1 > though; this still remains in the realm of things a 7500 does fine. I'm > not trying to defend the 7500 platform, it's obsolete all right. > However, free is music to my ears. 10meg ethernet yes, DS-3 depends on whether you own the telco side as well. Neil.
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
If you are after copper aggregation and broadband user feature support, you might also want to take a look at the Cisco1. Not sure of its POS capabilities, but depending on your density, might be cheaper $/port than the 7600. Heard mixed reports on the E-series from Juniper (software mainly, so it does depend on what you try and do with it), but if you want line rate ACLs, QoS etc, hard to go past the M-series (spec. M10i, M7i). OT: love the doilly comments on the 7500. I'll have to ask Mum to make me a few... Keith Burns Principal Network Architect ICG Telecommunications IP Ph: 303-414-5385 Cell: 303-912-3777 "The dogs may bark, but the caravan rolls on" > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:27 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my! > > > > > 7500s? In 2004? Throw those things in the trash where they > belong. It's > > always amazing to me how many people will cling to obsolete > things for > > years just because it is what they know. > > Don't agree with this. For E1/T1 access these boxes are fine. Yes > they are long in the tooth but they are quite capable. I > wouldn't spend > a huge amount of time or money trying to make them do > anything else though. > > > Even a Juniper M5 will do 16 OC3's with line rate filtering and > > forwarding. There are probably a dozen design > considerations based on > > requirements you haven't described, but if you're doing > primarily sonet, > > 7600 isn't really the way to go. > > Depends on what "primarily sonet" means. > > Regards, > Neil. >
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
>> Dan Armstrong wrote: >> GSRs are useless if you are doing any kind of >> aggregation. Their traffic shaping abilities >> are embarrassing. > Neil J. McRae > Historically yes, but no longer. The latest line of > GSR cards now give them much greater capability in > this area even though it was never designed as an > access box. There still is the issue of cost though. GSR line cards are not cheap. >> 7500 is the classic aggregator. They do the job >> quite well, actually. Based on cost right now, I >> would take 10 7500s over 1 7600 anyday. > If you are just aggregating E1/T1 then I'd agree, > but the minute you need DS-3/E3/STM-1/ATM/100BaseT/ > Gige aggregation then the 7600 is a far better > choice cost wise I would put 10mbps Ethernet and possibly DS3 in the same pool as E1/T1 though; this still remains in the realm of things a 7500 does fine. I'm not trying to defend the 7500 platform, it's obsolete all right. However, free is music to my ears. Michel.
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> 7500s? In 2004? Throw those things in the trash where they belong. It's > always amazing to me how many people will cling to obsolete things for > years just because it is what they know. Don't agree with this. For E1/T1 access these boxes are fine. Yes they are long in the tooth but they are quite capable. I wouldn't spend a huge amount of time or money trying to make them do anything else though. > Even a Juniper M5 will do 16 OC3's with line rate filtering and > forwarding. There are probably a dozen design considerations based on > requirements you haven't described, but if you're doing primarily sonet, > 7600 isn't really the way to go. Depends on what "primarily sonet" means. Regards, Neil.
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> GSRs are useless if you are doing any kind of aggregation. Their traffic > shaping abilities are embarrassing. Historically yes, but no longer. The latest line of GSR cards now give them much greater capability in this area even though it was never designed as an access box. > 7500 is the classic aggregator. They do the job quite well, actually. > Based on cost right now, I would take 10 7500s over 1 7600 anyday. If you are just aggregating E1/T1 then I'd agree, but the minute you need DS-3/E3/STM-1/ATM/100BaseT/Gige aggregation then the 7600 is a far better choice cost wise, if only the code on it worked. The feature set for the 7600 and the roadmap is very impressive but Cisco need to spend a large part of time a: fixing the bugs in the code and b: training their people how this box works. > For transit, though, I would use a Juniper - hands down. Cisco has to get > their $hit together in terms of software stability one would hope it > would get more stable over time but alas no. "transit" ? In my view the software on the GSR is very stable, in fact probably one of the most stable parts of the IOS family. I can count on one hand the number of real bugs we have for the GSR in the last 3-4 years, and two of them were security related. [which as I understand it Juniper is not ammune to either]. There are issues with the early engine 0 and engine 1 cards on the GSR so beware if buying second user cards. Also I would not underestimate the effort of going multivendor for core and access devices. There are alot of issues other than just cost when going multivendor. Regards, Neil.
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Never under any condition let anyone tell you that Juniper is perfect... But, as everyone that uses both will tell you, it is "better" (at most things). They tend to be (in our experience) a "set it and forget it" thing, while you can spend considerable time tweaking your Cisco; but admittedly ours is just an M5 edge (two gig-Es into an OC48). The rest of our gear is Cisco, and yes, we draw straws to see who has to mess with the Juniper when it has to be messed with. And speaking ancient history, we retired a 7505/RSP1 to the testbed a few years ago. It had two 6E cards (original core) and later a 2FE to play router-on-a-stick to a 5500/NFFC-II. We're now using 6500s (core) and 4500s/3550s (distribution). The old RSP1 looks pretty silly now :-) Jeff
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 08:09:36PM -0800, Michel Py wrote: > Cisco vs. Juniper: Whatever some people might say, everyone that uses > both will tell you that the real picture is not Cisco=100% crap and > Juniper=100% perfect :-) Besides, if you're a Cisco shop it's hard to > find sound arguments to have only one or two Junipers (common business > sense: twice the training, each one rejecting responsibility on the > other, more difficult to find JunOs experts than IOS experts, etc...). Never under any condition let anyone tell you that Juniper is perfect... But, as everyone that uses both will tell you, it is "better" (at most things). -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > I already have a very nice empty M160 > chassis for a chair at the colo, I don't like it for a chair, too high (29"); A 7500 is a lot better for that use. It's really nice as a heater too, particularly a dual AC loaded with legacy blades. Other possible uses for a 7500 include a temperature sensor (http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/mrtg/router-temp.html). My views on the original question: Cisco vs. Juniper: Whatever some people might say, everyone that uses both will tell you that the real picture is not Cisco=100% crap and Juniper=100% perfect :-) Besides, if you're a Cisco shop it's hard to find sound arguments to have only one or two Junipers (common business sense: twice the training, each one rejecting responsibility on the other, more difficult to find JunOs experts than IOS experts, etc...). 7600 vs. GSR: These are not the same boxes. There is stuff that the 7600 won't do, but there's also stuff that the GSR won't do in terms of aggregating a bunch of disparate links together. Michel.
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
GSRs are useless if you are doing any kind of aggregation. Their traffic shaping abilities are embarrassing. 7500 is the classic aggregator. They do the job quite well, actually. Based on cost right now, I would take 10 7500s over 1 7600 anyday. For transit, though, I would use a Juniper - hands down. Cisco has to get their $hit together in terms of software stability one would hope it would get more stable over time but alas no. Dan. "Tom (UnitedLayer)" wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, bcm wrote: > > But where to go? The Cisco GSR platform seems a logical choice, but > > their new 7600 series units are attractive for their cost. > > 7600's have all the craptacularity of 6500 switches, because thats what > they are, I would reccomend against them. > > Buying GSR's is probably the right replacement for 7500's if you want to > stick with Cisco. > > > Juniper may also have a place at this end of the processing spectrum. > > I'd also like to ensure that the new platform supports doing CAR and > > ACLs at line rate, given the client base. > > Then you'll be wanting J boxes then, cuz Cisco doesn't do that very well > from my experience.
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
At 09:37 PM 1/6/2004, you wrote: Oh, also, on the subject of used market pricing... It's been a while since I looked at Cisco ChDS3 PA pricing in any serious detail, but as I recall they were valued as though they were made of gold and personally blessed by Pope John Chambers when compared to used Juniper ChDS3s. If this is really your Last time I bought a PA-MC-T3, I paid $4700.00 and that is a GREAT price. They usually sell for $5k+ Two years ago, I sold some extras for $1500-2000/ea. They have more than doubled in price. The PA-MC-2T3 cards are going for $10-12k used now! I bought them in 2000 and 2001 for $4500 each. application, you could probably sell your load of ChDS3 PAs to the waiting crowd of suckers on eBay and trade up to a Juniper with money left over, on any decent number of chds3's. So... Everyone always says Juniper is so great. How does one get a legitimate copy of JunOS and a software support contract. I have called and emailed Juniper at least 3-4 times via each method and never received any response regarding getting a license for a used router. I would like to buy a used M5/10/20/40 just to play with it so I can learn more about them and how they work. We are interesting in the scalability and the cheap PIC cards available for the Juniper gear - especially the channelized DS3 interfaces. Does anyone have a useful contact or number for software maintenance at Juniper? I don't want to spend $5-10k on used Juniper gear if I can't get an OS to run on it. Any Juniper lovers care to help? TIA! -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one." - Francis Jeffrey
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 08:25:18PM -0500, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > find. 7507 + dual ps + rsp4 can be had for $1000 to $1500, and VIP2-50's > can be had for $300. And then, you can use all the PA's you have laying > around from your 7200's. Oh, also, on the subject of used market pricing... It's been a while since I looked at Cisco ChDS3 PA pricing in any serious detail, but as I recall they were valued as though they were made of gold and personally blessed by Pope John Chambers when compared to used Juniper ChDS3s. If this is really your application, you could probably sell your load of ChDS3 PAs to the waiting crowd of suckers on eBay and trade up to a Juniper with money left over, on any decent number of chds3's. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> the thought of someone considering building new pops of 7500s > still sends chills down my spine. it should bring cheer. remember, alex's suggestion is made and done by your competition. randy
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 08:25:18PM -0500, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > > 7500s? In 2004? Throw those things in the trash where they belong. It's > > always amazing to me how many people will cling to obsolete things for > > years just because it is what they know. > > > > Even a Juniper M5 will do 16 OC3's with line rate filtering and > > forwarding. There are probably a dozen design considerations based on > > requirements you haven't described, but if you're doing primarily sonet, > > 7600 isn't really the way to go. > > I usually agree with RAS, but not this time. > > 7500's have a place; not everyone is looking for wire speed at 2499384 > gigglebits. In our network, 7500's have made a home for the leaf-ends of > DS3's in dial and DSL pops, handling 20 to 40 megs/sec with easy (ie, > vip2-50's at 15% CPU). Also handle MPLS AToM with ease, PPPOE/A if needed > (we choose to segregate that onto VXR's). Yes, I suppose 7500s do have a place. To quote rs, "I have a lace doily and a lamp atop a 7500; it's quite nice." :) Your argument applies if you have them sitting around already, don't need performance, don't need filtering, don't need stability, AND have enough places to put lamps or plants at your house, or places to sit at the colo. That's fine and all, we all have legacy gear we have to do something with, but the thought of someone considering building new pops of 7500s still sends chills down my spine. Maybe I'm just biased because I actually do need all of the things mentioned above, and I already have a very nice empty M160 chassis for a chair at the colo, thus making the existance of a 7500 anywhere near me more of a burden in trash disposal fees than anything else. If you really do have a situation where you don't need or want any of the aforementioned qualities, you can use Linksys for all I care. :) > 7500's also can handle many ChDS3's with ease. And, also, with RSP16/VIP8, > lots of traffic can be handled. > > All at a substantially less price than even the cheapest used M5 you can > find. 7507 + dual ps + rsp4 can be had for $1000 to $1500, and VIP2-50's > can be had for $300. And then, you can use all the PA's you have laying > around from your 7200's. The cost of the extra rack space will be more than you paid for the entire 7500 every few months. If I'm going to run many ChDS3, I'd rather go ahead and future-proof myself (I could end up replacing those PICs with OC12 QPP's doing ds1's some day) for a little bit more money now, still be able to run 20+ ChDS3 ports with plenty of uplink capacity in a 3U M10, and save the money in the cost of the space and power. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> 7500s? In 2004? Throw those things in the trash where they belong. It's > always amazing to me how many people will cling to obsolete things for > years just because it is what they know. > > Even a Juniper M5 will do 16 OC3's with line rate filtering and > forwarding. There are probably a dozen design considerations based on > requirements you haven't described, but if you're doing primarily sonet, > 7600 isn't really the way to go. I usually agree with RAS, but not this time. 7500's have a place; not everyone is looking for wire speed at 2499384 gigglebits. In our network, 7500's have made a home for the leaf-ends of DS3's in dial and DSL pops, handling 20 to 40 megs/sec with easy (ie, vip2-50's at 15% CPU). Also handle MPLS AToM with ease, PPPOE/A if needed (we choose to segregate that onto VXR's). 7500's also can handle many ChDS3's with ease. And, also, with RSP16/VIP8, lots of traffic can be handled. All at a substantially less price than even the cheapest used M5 you can find. 7507 + dual ps + rsp4 can be had for $1000 to $1500, and VIP2-50's can be had for $300. And then, you can use all the PA's you have laying around from your 7200's. Secondly, 6509 + OSM is actually a sweet solution, and provides way more LAN aggregation than any traditional 'router' can. Wire speed, too. (disclaimer: this is coming from someone who has all m5, m10, m20, and m40 core, with 6509's, 7500's and 7200's strewn all over his network. These are my opinions, and probably differ from people who are indentical to me).
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, bcm wrote: > But where to go? The Cisco GSR platform seems a logical choice, but > their new 7600 series units are attractive for their cost. 7600's have all the craptacularity of 6500 switches, because thats what they are, I would reccomend against them. Buying GSR's is probably the right replacement for 7500's if you want to stick with Cisco. > Juniper may also have a place at this end of the processing spectrum. > I'd also like to ensure that the new platform supports doing CAR and > ACLs at line rate, given the client base. Then you'll be wanting J boxes then, cuz Cisco doesn't do that very well from my experience.
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:11:25PM -0500, bcm wrote: > > Hello all, > > I'm faced with a difficult decision. I work for a large multi-node > regional ISP (and Cisco shop). In our largest nodes we've found the Cisco > 7500 series routers to be at the end of their useful life due to the > throughput generated by POS OC-3 feeds and 10,000+ broadband users whose > traffic needs to be moved out of the node. Short of building a farm of > 7500's the need to upgrade seems clear. > > But where to go? The Cisco GSR platform seems a logical choice, but > their new 7600 series units are attractive for their cost. Juniper may also > have a place at this end of the processing spectrum. I'd also like to > ensure that the new platform supports doing CAR and ACLs at line rate, given > the client base. > > I wanted to see what other operators in this situation have done, so I > would appreciate anyone's input or insight into the pros and cons of these > platforms or any other ideas as to how I can grow beyond the Cisco 7500. 7500s? In 2004? Throw those things in the trash where they belong. It's always amazing to me how many people will cling to obsolete things for years just because it is what they know. Even a Juniper M5 will do 16 OC3's with line rate filtering and forwarding. There are probably a dozen design considerations based on requirements you haven't described, but if you're doing primarily sonet, 7600 isn't really the way to go. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
> I'm faced with a difficult decision. I work for a large multi-node > regional ISP (and Cisco shop). In our largest nodes we've found the Cisco > 7500 series routers to be at the end of their useful life due to the > throughput generated by POS OC-3 feeds and 10,000+ broadband users whose > traffic needs to be moved out of the node. Short of building a farm of > 7500's the need to upgrade seems clear. Will the interfaces likely continue to be POS OC-3 ? What is the growing path for this: POS OC-12, GigE ? > But where to go? The Cisco GSR platform seems a logical choice, but > their new 7600 series units are attractive for their cost. Juniper may also > have a place at this end of the processing spectrum. I'd also like to > ensure that the new platform supports doing CAR and ACLs at line rate, given > the client base. The GSR line-cards to what you want would need to be the "edge" ones, based on either Engine 3 or Engine 4+. 7600 requires WAN cards to support POS, I think GSR and Juniper M are more likely candidates for this design. Rubens
RE: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my!
Given that you are a Cisco shop and likely have a lot of O&M money spent to support that vendor I would suggest you look closely at the 7600's to replace your 7500's. Great for low to medium density of port aggregation and hence good $/port ratio. Ian -Original Message- From: bcm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GSR, 7600, Juniper M?, oh my! Hello all, I'm faced with a difficult decision. I work for a large multi-node regional ISP (and Cisco shop). In our largest nodes we've found the Cisco 7500 series routers to be at the end of their useful life due to the throughput generated by POS OC-3 feeds and 10,000+ broadband users whose traffic needs to be moved out of the node. Short of building a farm of 7500's the need to upgrade seems clear. But where to go? The Cisco GSR platform seems a logical choice, but their new 7600 series units are attractive for their cost. Juniper may also have a place at this end of the processing spectrum. I'd also like to ensure that the new platform supports doing CAR and ACLs at line rate, given the client base. I wanted to see what other operators in this situation have done, so I would appreciate anyone's input or insight into the pros and cons of these platforms or any other ideas as to how I can grow beyond the Cisco 7500.
