Re: GigE Peering Router

From: Patrick W.Gilmore (no email)
Date: Mon Oct 10 2005 - 05:01:06 EDT

  • Next message: (no name): "Re: Too much on Cogent and Level 3"

    On Oct 10, 2005, at 2:53 AM, James Ashton wrote:

    > I would run from the 7206+NPE-G1 in this capacity. We have not had
    > luck
    > actually getting a gig worth of traffic flowing through them. Great
    > small site router, but not much on the throughput side at all.

    We are currently pushing 950+ Mbps through several 7301s. (The 7301
    is essentially an NPE-G1 in a box by itself.)

    This traffic is heavily outbound. Several NAPs have the router, some
    with 100+ peers. We do not have a lot of ACLs or other CPU-eating
    stuff in the config. 

    -- 
TTFN,
patrick
> ________________________________
>
> From:  [mailto:] On  
> Behalf Of
> Network Lists
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 1:40 PM
> To: 
> Subject: GigE Peering Router
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I was looking for some opinions on Cisco vs. Foundry (specifically
> Cisco's NPE-G1 vs a NetIron 4802). The application is mainly content
> delivery - outbound heavy traffic with an emphasis on quality of
> delivery.
>
>
>
> Basically I'm looking at the 4802 because we're able to provision GigE
> for all the providers, so we don't really need an architecture that  
> can
> support OC-type interfaces. The size is also attractive for some of  
> our
> smaller PoPs.
>
>
>
> I'm also intereted in failover/hot-standby capabilities on the Foundry
> as we have had much experience with them.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Lance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
  • Next message: (no name): "Re: Too much on Cogent and Level 3"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    		Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD