Luke Starrett wrote (quoting me):
> > PXF is found in the 7400 (old) and 7300 (newer) series.
>
> Not true. 7401 has a PXF. It's essentially an NSE-1 with GE/IO in a
> pizza box. 7301 is based on the NPE-G1 and doesn't have a PXF anywhere
> in sight.
OK, more precisely (I did refer to the r
> > PXF is found in the 7400 (old) and 7300 (newer) series.
>
> Not true. 7401 has a PXF. It's essentially an NSE-1 with GE/IO in a
> pizza box. 7301 is based on the NPE-G1 and doesn't have a PXF anywhere
> in sight.
On the other hand, the (original) 7304 used PXFs, on the NSE-100
forwardi
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:29:41PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
> > > * The 7206VXR prior to the NPE-G1 could only do around 560Mbps
> > > per bus typically, due to PCI limitations.
> >
> > Which usually was not a problem with i-mix traffic or ddos-traffic,
> > because pps limitation w
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> That would be where the NPE-G1 would be better than an RSP8;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Isn't it somewhat wrong to compare the NPE-G1 to any RSP
> since most of the packets, most of the time, are handled
> by the processors on the VIPs and never bothe
At 03:51 AM 31/01/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keep in mind, 72xx is still flow-based
72xx NPE-xxx is NOT flow-based -- unless you explicitly configure it to be.
(i.e. disable CEF, enable flow switching).
CEF is prefix-based switching - where all possible prefixes (routes/RIB)
are already progra
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 03:29:41PM -0200, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
> > * The 7206VXR prior to the NPE-G1 could only do around 560Mbps
> > per bus typically, due to PCI limitations.
>
> Which usually was not a problem with i-mix traffic or ddos-traffic, because
> pps limitation would hit soo
> No. While I was at my former employer, we took our edge
> ACL into the Juniper POC lab, and verified that an M40
> stuffed full of OC48 linecards could sustain just over
> 85% of line rate with our edge ACL applied before sustaining
> packet loss; the POC lab engineers double checked and
> veri
>
> ...
> That is of course, as opposed to Juniper, which is truly line-rate at any
> interface, with any services, at any composition of traffic.
No. While I was at my former employer, we took our edge
ACL into the Juniper POC lab, and verified that an M40
stuffed full of OC48 linecards coul
Once upon a time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Cisco plainly admits that the GEIP tops out at around 400mbit/s, but it's
> based on the rather old VIP2-50. Anyone know if they plan to put out a
> more capable GEIP, perhaps based on the VIP6-80, which theoretically would
> doub
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Michel Py wrote:
> That would be where the NPE-G1 would be better than an RSP8; however
Isn't it somewhat wrong to compare the NPE-G1 to any RSP since most of the
packets, most of the time, are handled by the processors on the VIPs and
never bother the RSP other than flowi
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> flow-based means router's performance is based on number
> of flows established, and first packet of each 'flow' is
> processed differently [slower] from all other within the
> flow, and things like nachi will kill it.
That would be where the NPE-G1 would be better th
me balance when unrealistic
claims are made.
Matt.
-Original Message-
From: Alex Yuriev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 January 2004 14:45
To: Matt Ryan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CIsco 7206VXR w/NPE-G1 Question
> It's not the Cisco bashing I was referring to, but the al
Matt Ryan wrote:
It's not the Cisco bashing I was referring to, but the all singing all
dancing Juniper performance claim.
If you feel differently, (and this might be a different list) you might
want to back up your
referring with some data.
Pete
> It's not the Cisco bashing I was referring to, but the all singing all
> dancing Juniper performance claim.
That would not have anything to do with Juniper sucking the least?
Alex
It's not the Cisco bashing I was referring to, but the all singing all
dancing Juniper performance claim.
Matt.
-Original Message-
From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 January 2004 17:43
To: Matt Ryan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CIsco 7206VXR w/NPE-G1 Que
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 January 2004 16:51
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CIsco 7206VXR w/NPE-G1 Question
Keep in mind, 72xx is still flow-based, so you need to count *both* shared
fabric capacity (aka PCI buses) and capacity of NPE to establish flows
(aka pps rate).
NPE-G1 might
> * The 7206VXR prior to the NPE-G1 could only do around 560Mbps
> per bus typically, due to PCI limitations.
Which usually was not a problem with i-mix traffic or ddos-traffic, because
pps limitation would hit sooner.
> * Compiled ACLs on 12.2S perform very well on NPE-G1s.
I saw no
> > Keep in mind, 72xx is still flow-based, so you need to count *both*
> > shared fabric capacity (aka PCI buses) and capacity of NPE to
> > establish flows (aka pps rate).
>
> Why do you say it is flow-based? You *do* use CEF, don't you? In which
> case 7200 with NPE-G1 is a prefix-based archit
t: 30 January 2004 16:51
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: CIsco 7206VXR w/NPE-G1 Question
>
>
>
> Keep in mind, 72xx is still flow-based, so you need to count *both* shared
> fabric capacity (aka PCI buses) and capacity of NPE to establish flows
> (aka pps rate).
>
> Keep in mind, 72xx is still flow-based, so you need to count *both* shared
> fabric capacity (aka PCI buses) and capacity of NPE to establish flows
> (aka pps rate).
Why do you say it is flow-based? You *do* use CEF, don't you? In which
case 7200 with NPE-G1 is a prefix-based architecture, wi
Do you get commission from Juniper?
Matt.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 January 2004 16:51
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CIsco 7206VXR w/NPE-G1 Question
Keep in mind, 72xx is still flow-based, so you need to count *both* shared
alf Of
> Simon Hamilton-Wilkes
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 9:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: CIsco 7206VXR w/NPE-G1 Question
>
>
>
> One more interesting feature - if you need a 4th GigE port, you c
comparison matrix and any info you have would
be great.
Jack
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Simon Hamilton-Wilkes
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 9:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CIsco 7206VXR w/NPE-G1 Question
One more inte
One more interesting feature - if you need a 4th GigE port, you can add the
GigE I/O card which still uses none of the bus bandwidth points. The buses
are fine for OC3 and below...
Simon
Michel Py wrote:
> My limited experience with the 7206
> says that it might eventually be able to push _one_ gig from one PA to
> another, but not aggregate: say you have 4 or 5 OC3s aggregating into a
> GigE with some ACLs (which would run distributed on a 7500) I don't
> think that even the NPE-
> Richard J. Sears wrote:
> I am looking at upgrading my current 7507 backbone routers.
> Each of my routers has dual RSP4s
Keep in mind that dual RSP does _not_ mean load sharing; it's for
redundancy, if you can get RPR+ to work the way you want that is.
> and I was thinking of upgrading them t
I am looking at upgrading my current 7507 backbone routers. Each of my
routers has dual RSP4s and I was thinking of upgrading them to RSP8s
when I started reading about the new 7206VXRs with the NPE-G1 engine.
I was wondering if anyone has had experience with this router/engine
combination, how w
27 matches
Mail list logo
