North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: 12000 ACL issue

  • From: Rubens Kuhl Jr.
  • Date: Fri Oct 19 15:59:25 2001

Sup2(6500 or 7600) is not demand-based, there is no flow-based
forwarding on it; it can actually go that far, but you are right about
past (and most of current) Cisco claims.  

In order to have 30 Mpps inside 15Gbps traffic, packet size on the line
would be 62.5 bytes and no silence between packets would be allowed.
When preambles and inter-frame-gaps are included, bottom line traffic
would be higher, and real packet size distribution would make it usable
for up to lot more traffic.

As this thread was started by ACL issues, are the 50/90/150 Mpps boxes
you mentioned capable of ACLs at these line rates ? 
What other beasts besides IP II, Sup2, Eng 3 and Eng4/edge can handle
high-rate ACLs ?

Rubens Kuhl Jr.


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Pete Kruckenberg
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 3:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 12000 ACL issue



On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:

> Why do you think 6500/7600 doesn't have the required performance ? 30 
> Mpps Sup 2 with fabric-enabled line-cards can perform incredibly 
> well... Having FlexWAN and other non-fabric line-cards will slow down 
> to 15 Mpps, which is usually enough. VLAN L3 interfaces are
> required only on CatOS (which is today required by POS
> modules, unfortunately), but not on Supervisor IOS.

Those are advertised numbers, best-case assuming flows that
can be distributed away from the MSFC. My experience with
Cisco in the past is they rarely get close to advertised numbers, YMMV.
Not that even 30Mpps (15Gb/s) is adequate for a GigE aggregation device,
and 15Mpps (7Gb/s) is not enough.

Even then, other vendors are advertising on the order of 50-90Mpps in
the same size chassises, and at least in my lab they are achieving that.
For the same price or less than 6500, lots less than 7600. And larger
chassises are avaiable doing on the order of 150Mpps.

In my experience, service providers that are doing lots of
L3 GigE are not using 6500's or other Cisco products, at
least for GigE services. 6500 is still strong in the L2 GigE space. With
10GigE, Cisco is even less appealing. SONET is a different story, of
course.

Pete.