Mailing List Archive

Charles,

I'm a bit partial considering I work for Cisco but the 7206 with NPE-G1
should at the very minimum be at par with the capabilities of a SMS 1800
(is that what you are looking at?) if not surpass it. The 7206 can do
the following which the low-end Redbacks can't:

RA-MPLS
IP QoS
Per-user firewall
16k active sessions
Service Selection
ATM based Dynamic Bandwidth Selection
...

I'm sure I missed some more stuff. You mentioned that the RB looks more
interesting, what specifically are you referring to? I have to admit,
sometimes Cisco marketing/product capability definitions aren't as good
as they should be so I can easily see how one might miss a lot of the
features Cisco has.

Hope that helps a bit.

Cheers,

Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-bba-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Charles Sprickman
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:47 PM
> To: cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [cisco-bba] RedBack comments
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I don't want to stir anything up, but is anyone here using Cisco and
> RedBack side-by-side and willing to compare?
>
> I'm currently looking at either getting another 7206 or a
> low-end RedBack.
> On paper the RB looks more interesting. It seems Cisco
> dropped the 6400.
> If this seems too OT, please reply privately and I'll summarize.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charles
>
> --
> Charles Sprickman
> spork@inch.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>

hello

i wonder if any1 has a 7206VXR/NPE-G1 serving more than 10k sessions in
PRODUCTION (not the test- and/or lab-figures)
if yes, i'd be very intrested in what IOS you're using - and what
configuration/features.

btw: we were using 7206VXR/NPE-400 - no special features enabled, just doing
plain "PPP-in-L2TP-termination" and did not manage terminating more than 4k
sessions (cisco claims 8k)...

that's the reason, why we're interested in "real-life-figures" of the NPE-1
(we've reached 6k - causing around 30% cpuload - no problems so far - but as
history shows, cpuload is not rising linear compared to the number of
sessions, we really doubt being able to do 16k sessions...)

tnx & greetz,
mark


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Andy Schutz (aschutz) [mailto:aschutz@cisco.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2003 00:09
An: 'Charles Sprickman'; cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
Betreff: RE: [cisco-bba] RedBack comments


Charles,

I'm a bit partial considering I work for Cisco but the 7206 with NPE-G1
should at the very minimum be at par with the capabilities of a SMS 1800 (is
that what you are looking at?) if not surpass it. The 7206 can do the
following which the low-end Redbacks can't:

RA-MPLS
IP QoS
Per-user firewall
16k active sessions
Service Selection
ATM based Dynamic Bandwidth Selection
...

I'm sure I missed some more stuff. You mentioned that the RB looks more
interesting, what specifically are you referring to? I have to admit,
sometimes Cisco marketing/product capability definitions aren't as good as
they should be so I can easily see how one might miss a lot of the features
Cisco has.

Hope that helps a bit.

Cheers,

Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-bba-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Charles Sprickman
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:47 PM
> To: cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [cisco-bba] RedBack comments
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I don't want to stir anything up, but is anyone here using Cisco and
> RedBack side-by-side and willing to compare?
>
> I'm currently looking at either getting another 7206 or a
> low-end RedBack.
> On paper the RB looks more interesting. It seems Cisco
> dropped the 6400.
> If this seems too OT, please reply privately and I'll summarize.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charles
>
> --
> Charles Sprickman
> spork@inch.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>

_______________________________________________
cisco-bba mailing list
cisco-bba@puck.nether.net http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba

Mark,

I can't speak to whether anyone has 16k (or even greater than 10k)
sessions up on a production router. I think the 16k number is a
"marketing" number but the reality is that you can get 16k sessions up
and active and passing traffic on a 7206 with NPE-G1. All vendors are
guilty of giving the absolute system maximum that a platform can support
under best case scenarios. For instance, Redback quotes 8k users on the
SMS 1800 but I think you will more commonly find numbers like 4k in
production. I believe they can do 8k, but people running production
networks don't want to have their routers maxed out and on their last
leg. So in Cisco terms, what level of CPU are you willing to be happy
with? Everyone has a different answer for this and the level of CPU
that you will run at is also not just a function of the number of users,
but also any services you have enabled, routing protocols, ACLs, etc.

I hope that helps a bit.

Cheers,

Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-bba-bounces@puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Walliser
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:13 PM
> To: cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> Subject: AW: [cisco-bba] RedBack comments
>
>
> hello
>
> i wonder if any1 has a 7206VXR/NPE-G1 serving more than 10k
> sessions in
> PRODUCTION (not the test- and/or lab-figures)
> if yes, i'd be very intrested in what IOS you're using - and what
> configuration/features.
>
> btw: we were using 7206VXR/NPE-400 - no special features
> enabled, just doing
> plain "PPP-in-L2TP-termination" and did not manage
> terminating more than 4k
> sessions (cisco claims 8k)...
>
> that's the reason, why we're interested in
> "real-life-figures" of the NPE-1
> (we've reached 6k - causing around 30% cpuload - no problems
> so far - but as
> history shows, cpuload is not rising linear compared to the number of
> sessions, we really doubt being able to do 16k sessions...)
>
> tnx & greetz,
> mark
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Andy Schutz (aschutz) [mailto:aschutz@cisco.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2003 00:09
> An: 'Charles Sprickman'; cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> Betreff: RE: [cisco-bba] RedBack comments
>
>
> Charles,
>
> I'm a bit partial considering I work for Cisco but the 7206
> with NPE-G1
> should at the very minimum be at par with the capabilities of
> a SMS 1800 (is
> that what you are looking at?) if not surpass it. The 7206 can do the
> following which the low-end Redbacks can't:
>
> RA-MPLS
> IP QoS
> Per-user firewall
> 16k active sessions
> Service Selection
> ATM based Dynamic Bandwidth Selection
> ...
>
> I'm sure I missed some more stuff. You mentioned that the RB
> looks more
> interesting, what specifically are you referring to? I have to admit,
> sometimes Cisco marketing/product capability definitions
> aren't as good as
> they should be so I can easily see how one might miss a lot
> of the features
> Cisco has.
>
> Hope that helps a bit.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-bba-bounces@puck.nether.net
> > [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> > Charles Sprickman
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:47 PM
> > To: cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: [cisco-bba] RedBack comments
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I don't want to stir anything up, but is anyone here using
> Cisco and
> > RedBack side-by-side and willing to compare?
> >
> > I'm currently looking at either getting another 7206 or a
> > low-end RedBack.
> > On paper the RB looks more interesting. It seems Cisco
> > dropped the 6400.
> > If this seems too OT, please reply privately and I'll summarize.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > --
> > Charles Sprickman
> > spork@inch.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-bba mailing list
> > cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-> bba
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>

Hi

What is the avarage BW per subscriber you are seeing?
We have an NPE-G1 running arond 3K broadband sessions (~40-50Kbps per user
on avarge) with per-user-CAR (both ways)
The CPU is at around 40%

Arie

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Mark Walliser wrote:

> hello
>
> i wonder if any1 has a 7206VXR/NPE-G1 serving more than 10k sessions in
> PRODUCTION (not the test- and/or lab-figures)
> if yes, i'd be very intrested in what IOS you're using - and what
> configuration/features.
>
> btw: we were using 7206VXR/NPE-400 - no special features enabled, just doing
> plain "PPP-in-L2TP-termination" and did not manage terminating more than 4k
> sessions (cisco claims 8k)...
>
> that's the reason, why we're interested in "real-life-figures" of the NPE-1
> (we've reached 6k - causing around 30% cpuload - no problems so far - but as
> history shows, cpuload is not rising linear compared to the number of
> sessions, we really doubt being able to do 16k sessions...)
>
> tnx & greetz,
> mark
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Andy Schutz (aschutz) [mailto:aschutz@cisco.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2003 00:09
> An: 'Charles Sprickman'; cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> Betreff: RE: [cisco-bba] RedBack comments
>
>
> Charles,
>
> I'm a bit partial considering I work for Cisco but the 7206 with NPE-G1
> should at the very minimum be at par with the capabilities of a SMS 1800 (is
> that what you are looking at?) if not surpass it. The 7206 can do the
> following which the low-end Redbacks can't:
>
> RA-MPLS
> IP QoS
> Per-user firewall
> 16k active sessions
> Service Selection
> ATM based Dynamic Bandwidth Selection
> ...
>
> I'm sure I missed some more stuff. You mentioned that the RB looks more
> interesting, what specifically are you referring to? I have to admit,
> sometimes Cisco marketing/product capability definitions aren't as good as
> they should be so I can easily see how one might miss a lot of the features
> Cisco has.
>
> Hope that helps a bit.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-bba-bounces@puck.nether.net
> > [mailto:cisco-bba-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> > Charles Sprickman
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:47 PM
> > To: cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: [cisco-bba] RedBack comments
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I don't want to stir anything up, but is anyone here using Cisco and
> > RedBack side-by-side and willing to compare?
> >
> > I'm currently looking at either getting another 7206 or a
> > low-end RedBack.
> > On paper the RB looks more interesting. It seems Cisco
> > dropped the 6400.
> > If this seems too OT, please reply privately and I'll summarize.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > --
> > Charles Sprickman
> > spork@inch.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-bba mailing list
> > cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> > http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba@puck.nether.net http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>