nanog mailing list archives
RE: SUP720 vs. SUP32
From: "Holmes,David A" <dholmes () mwdh2o com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:37:48 -0700
Make sure that the new 10 GiGE line cards are not in your plans if you choose the SUP32. This holds for some of the other copper and fiber line cards where line card buffer capacity may be critical to effective throughput. Some new line cards only connect to the 720 Gig backplane. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Blackford [mailto:BBlackford () nwresd k12 or us] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 11:18 AM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: SUP720 vs. SUP32 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:
- Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32, (continued)
- 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 Brian Feeny (Mar 11)
- Re: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Larry Stites (Mar 11)
- RE: SUP720 vs. SUP32 Holmes,David A (Mar 11)