 | Start a set with this search |
 | Include this search in one of my sets |
 | Exclude this search from one of my sets |
 | Permalink to these results Paste this link in email or IM: |
 | Atom feed for tracking future search results Paste this URL into your reader: |
11 messages in net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp[c-nsp] Re: 7500 PPPoE dCEF aggregation| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Joe Maimon | Jan 16, 2005 2:48 pm | |
| Niels Bakker | Jan 16, 2005 4:14 pm | |
| Joe Maimon | Jan 16, 2005 4:29 pm | |
| Gert Doering | Jan 17, 2005 12:05 pm | |
| Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) | Jan 17, 2005 12:28 pm | |
| Gert Doering | Jan 17, 2005 3:20 pm | |
| Rodney Dunn | Jan 17, 2005 5:08 pm | |
| Rodney Dunn | Jan 17, 2005 5:10 pm | |
| Joe Maimon | Jan 17, 2005 5:13 pm | |
| Robert E.Seastrom | Jan 18, 2005 10:28 am | |
| Rodney Dunn | Jan 18, 2005 10:54 am |
| Permalink for this message Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Permalink for this thread Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for this thread Paste this URL into your reader: |
| Subject: | [c-nsp] Re: 7500 PPPoE dCEF aggregation | Actions... |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Rodney Dunn (rod...@cisco.com) | |
| Date: | Jan 17, 2005 5:10:39 pm | |
| List: | net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp | |
This is what I was talking about the last time I looked at was not supported and was told there were no plans to port this support in the dCEF path for the 75xx.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_guide09186a00801d1dfd.html
Rodney
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:08:44PM -0500, Rodney Dunn wrote:
Gert,
There is a 2048 IDB limit on the 75xx and it will most likely never be increased. There are multiple reasons why this box is not recommended for broadband aggregation.
a) Originally we didn't have dCEF support for VA interfaces. This did get added at some point along the way I think as part of dLFI and not directly to support broadband aggregation.
b) IPC communication between the VIP and RSP can become a bottleneck for large numbers of interfaces with features applied.
There is also one feature that I know of that wasn't supported when I last looked at it and that was VLAN unnumbered support.
This platform is not tested in this deployment scenario also.
If it were me looking for a platform to do broadband aggregation I would not look at the 75xx for this purpose.
72xx/G1, 7301, 10k are the most commonly used boxes for this space that I have seen.
I don't recall if there was a discussion about the MWAM blade for the 76xx to do this functionality or not.
My 2c. based on experience....
Rodney
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:10:36AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 04:29:03PM -0500, Joe Maimon wrote:
As it stands, both GRE and L2TP are dCEF on the 7500 platform, I dont see how PPPoE which has only a 8 byte header compared to GRE's 24 would be so much harder.
Out of curiosity: for these tunnels which VIP does the encapsulation work? The VIP that has the outgoing interface corresponding to the "tunnel dest" IP? Or can you tie GRE/L2TP processing to a specific VIP (sort of like the Juniper Tunnel PIC)?
Back on topic, I think the 7200/NPE-G1 or 7301 are very interesting boxes here - much less real estate, much faster primary CPU, and a fast second CPU that Cisco is already working on, implementing these nice things...
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert at
greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert at
net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/