11 messages in net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp[c-nsp] 7500 PPPoE dCEF aggregation
FromSent OnAttachments
Joe MaimonJan 16, 2005 2:48 pm 
Niels BakkerJan 16, 2005 4:14 pm 
Joe MaimonJan 16, 2005 4:29 pm 
Gert DoeringJan 17, 2005 12:05 pm 
Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)Jan 17, 2005 12:28 pm 
Gert DoeringJan 17, 2005 3:20 pm 
Rodney DunnJan 17, 2005 5:08 pm 
Rodney DunnJan 17, 2005 5:10 pm 
Joe MaimonJan 17, 2005 5:13 pm 
Robert E.SeastromJan 18, 2005 10:28 am 
Rodney DunnJan 18, 2005 10:54 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:[c-nsp] 7500 PPPoE dCEF aggregationActions...
From:Joe Maimon (jmai@ttec.com)
Date:Jan 16, 2005 4:29:58 pm
List:net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp

Niels Bakker wrote:

* jmai@ttec.com (Joe Maimon) [Sun 16 Jan 2005, 20:54 CET]:

Being that the 7500 is the largest distributed platform (that I know of) that supports the enterprise/fw feature set (jk9o3sv) does anyone else have an interest in seeing PPPoE aggregation become dCEF instead of being CEF punted to the RSP?

Cisco claims nobody wants it and has junked previous feature requests.

VIPs have puny CPUs and would be real bad at it. Recent RSPs have much beefier CPUs on them, it makes sense to do that processing there.

I believe that's more like the rationale given out by Cisco...

-- Niels.

Thanks for the response.

I wish I could share your enthusiasm for the only recent RSP, the RSP16 which has a CPU double the RSP4 at 400Mhz IIRC. Oh and the system only has one of those in active use at any single time.

The VIP2-50 has the same CPU as the RSP4.

I guess I will find out soon how much "higher" the RSP16 scales.

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.

Joe