nanog mailing list archives
Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32
From: Brian Feeny <bfeeny () mac com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:29:08 -0400
Honestly, my advise is don't handle full tables in switches unless you want to use 3bxl. Use routers, any old ISR can do 1GB memory or so and handle the table just fine, and run you a fraction of the cost. Keep internal routes, defaults, etc in the switching core.
Brian On Mar 11, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Bill Blackford wrote:
Anyone have any experience with SUP32? Please contact me off list. I'm trying to evaluate a lower-cost alternative to the 720-3bxl.I'm only pushing a few hundred megs of traffic, exchanging a few routes with less than 20 peers and don't see the need for a 720's worth of throughput in the near future.Can the 32 handle a full table? How does the MFSC2A compare to the MFSC3? V6 support? Thank you. -- Bill Blackford Senior Network Engineer my /home away from home
Current thread:
- SUP720 vs. SUP32 Bill Blackford (Mar 11)
- Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Adrian Chadd (Mar 11)
- Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Brian Feeny (Mar 11)
- Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Brian Feeny (Mar 11)
- Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Jon Lewis (Mar 11)
- RE: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Bill Blackford (Mar 11)
- Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Adrian Chadd (Mar 11)
- RE: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Norrie, David (Mar 18)
- Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Adrian Chadd (Mar 18)
- RE: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Holmes,David A (Mar 18)
- Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Adrian Chadd (Mar 11)
- Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Mark Tinka (Mar 11)
- Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Larry Stites (Mar 11)
- RE: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Holmes,David A (Mar 11)