Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    290

    Buying a Cisco 6509-E

    Hi,

    I am considering buying a C6509-E and I wanted to get a feel
    for that which I am about to do is hopefully a good move, and not a bad one. My traffic patterns are similar to what I suspect many
    of you experience. My traffic levels hovers around 2 - 300 mbit, but we are about to start offering more colocation services.
    I also do internet facing bgp routing.

    I was thinking something like this:

    1 x C6509-E Chassis
    1 x VS-S720-10G-3CXL 720 with 2 ports 10GbE MSFC3 PFC3C XL
    1 x MEM-C6K-CPTFL1GB Compact Flash Memory 1GB
    1 x WS-X6724-SFP 24-port GigE
    1 x WS-C6509-E-FAN Fan tray
    2 x WS-CAC-3000W

    I will probably add on the forwarding card to the 6724 once my traffic levels rises more.

    Additionally I would probably be getting one more identical box a little later.

    Could I get any feedback on this setup, is there anything I've missed?

    Also, if you have bought a similar setup before I would love to to be given an idea of what I should expect for pricing?

    Any info would be greatly appreciated.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    3,131
    Quote Originally Posted by whoppe View Post
    My traffic levels hovers around 2 - 300 mbit, but we are about to start offering more colocation services.
    I also do internet facing bgp routing.
    the 3CXL is the 3BXL but supports VSS. Your solution my friend will last you into lots of multiples of 10Gbps connectivity. Probably the last router/switch you will ever need to buy. Why the 3CXL? do you plan on getting a second 09 and utilizing them as "one switch" and take advantage of the VSS? if not save a few bucks and get the 3bxl.

    You can handle a couple Gbps utilizing a sup2u, but the 3bxl/3cxls are the better choice now due to the rapidly growing route tables.

    Overall nice purchase.
    Yellow Fiber Networks
    http://www.yellowfiber.net : Managed Solutions - Colocation - Network Services IPv4/IPv6
    Ashburn/Denver/NYC/Dallas/Chicago Markets Served zak@yellowfiber.net

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    290
    The 3CXL was mostly because it was recommended to me, a non VSS would be fine. I do plan on buying another one, but not as one virtual switch. Rather two totally independent switches.

    Other than that, I will look at the price difference, and if its too great i'll skip the 3CXL unless its really required.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    955
    You could buy a 6509 (or smaller chassis) on eBay with spare parts for cheap. A sup1a/sup2 would more than handle your traffic.
    I <3 Linux Clusters

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    963
    Based on quotes I got recently, to do this with used-market gear, and a pair of Sup-720s (because you do want redundancy, right?) I think you're probably looking at between $55k and $75k.

    Given your bandwidth usage currently, might you be better off going with a pair of Sup2/msfc2's until you've hit say 2gb/s and can warrant the extra expense?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    290
    I'm not going to go down the sup2 path as I don't want something which have issues holding the entire routing tables for much longer.

    That is just a waste of money, but like said I am probably going to go for the non VSS supervisors.

  7. #7
    Get the 3BXL with 1 gig / 1 gig; it will last for years
    The Sup2/MSFC2 has limited ram and will run into BGP issues soon.

    I would suggest getting two of the Compact Flash Memory, and keep your configs and copy of IOS up to date on both of them

    Finally, if you are only doing a couple hundred megs, and will be adding more servers, did you consider the 6748-GE-TX?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    290
    thank you, reason for going fiber is that i'll use other switches to distribute in addition and I prefer fiber connections.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,662
    DO NOT buy a Sup-2GE or Sup-720. The 720-3BXL is a must.

    You'll hit global routing table limitations on anything else and be forced to spend more money in the very short term.

    The SUP2 would be fine if you were only taking default routes.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    Why do you feel you need the entire routing table for that little bit of traffic? The 6509 is a must and is a GREAT platform to build off of. It can handle your core routing and distribution. The SUPII works great and you can always upgrade when the 720s come down in price as they have been doing over the last year.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    UrNode - Virtual Solutions
    http://www.UrNode.com

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanD View Post
    DO NOT buy a Sup-2GE or Sup-720. The 720-3BXL is a must.

    You'll hit global routing table limitations on anything else and be forced to spend more money in the very short term.

    The SUP2 would be fine if you were only taking default routes.
    Can I see some impirical evidence to back up this statement? The general consensus amongst the Cisco people I know is the Sup2 still has a couple good years left, the routing tables aren't growing that quickly.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by mhalligan View Post
    Can I see some impirical evidence to back up this statement? The general consensus amongst the Cisco people I know is the Sup2 still has a couple good years left, the routing tables aren't growing that quickly.
    the SUP2 has more routing table capacity than the SUP720A and the SUP720B.

    The SUP720A and B both have 256k while the SUP2-MSFC2 has 512k. So the SUP2 can handle the growing routing table. But it can only support 512MB RAM which will be your eventual downfall before you hit the routing table limit.

    FYI the SUP3BXL and 3CXL can both handle 1mil routes
    Jay

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Reston, VA
    Posts
    3,131
    If he only has say two providers, and really just has the other for failover.. he really doesn't need routing tables... just default routes.

    lots of variables. I just couldn't see spending 40k more than need to spend.
    Yellow Fiber Networks
    http://www.yellowfiber.net : Managed Solutions - Colocation - Network Services IPv4/IPv6
    Ashburn/Denver/NYC/Dallas/Chicago Markets Served zak@yellowfiber.net

  14. #14
    You can do this on the real cheap for only 300mbps.
    6509 NON-E
    6416 GBIC based card no-sfp saves you about 6k
    sup2-MSFC2 or do the basic sup727-3BXL

    Depends on which way you go you can get a sup2 for $2k or a 3bxl for $13k But this can be done for less than 12k per system.
    Jay

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,662
    Quote Originally Posted by jayglate View Post
    the SUP2 has more routing table capacity than the SUP720A and the SUP720B.

    The SUP720A and B both have 256k while the SUP2-MSFC2 has 512k. So the SUP2 can handle the growing routing table. But it can only support 512MB RAM which will be your eventual downfall before you hit the routing table limit.

    FYI the SUP3BXL and 3CXL can both handle 1mil routes
    sorry, I wasn't being clear. I was more specifically referring to the limited 512MB ram which would be exhausted.

    We're getting very close to the 256k (http://bgp.potaroo.net/bgprpts/rva-index.html) line and despite the additional 256k available on the SUP2 it's limited memory is going to cripple it going forward. To me the future-proof (somewhat) option of the 3bxl at a relatively small cost is well worth it.

    Lets face it, if you plan on growing an additional $20k expense in network infrastructure isn't a big deal.

    Heck we went thorugh this earlier this year on here and everyone poo-poo'd the SUP2s
    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archiv.../t-575180.html

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanD View Post
    sorry, I wasn't being clear. I was more specifically referring to the limited 512MB ram which would be exhausted.

    We're getting very close to the 256k (http://bgp.potaroo.net/bgprpts/rva-index.html) line and despite the additional 256k available on the SUP2 it's limited memory is going to cripple it going forward. To me the future-proof (somewhat) option of the 3bxl at a relatively small cost is well worth it.

    Lets face it, if you plan on growing an additional $20k expense in network infrastructure isn't a big deal.

    Heck we went thorugh this earlier this year on here and everyone poo-poo'd the SUP2s
    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archiv.../t-575180.html
    This is easily a $40k additional expense if you consider the cost difference in the supervisors and the 6700 series boards. Does the memory difference really matter in the next 6-12 months if you're only using the sup2 for routing?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,662
    Quote Originally Posted by mhalligan View Post
    This is easily a $40k additional expense if you consider the cost difference in the supervisors and the 6700 series boards. Does the memory difference really matter in the next 6-12 months if you're only using the sup2 for routing?
    just he does not need 67xx blades.

  18. #18
    Michael, it depends on what you mean by 'only using the sup2 for routing'
    If you mean static, RIP, or OSPF then sure, it is fine. If you are using the 650x as a switch that is connecting to a couple of core routers, then sure, Sup2MSFC2 is fine. In fact, that is what we are doing with the supe2s that we are pulling out of the cores!
    However, if you are talking about doing BGP routing, with multiple BGP carriers, then NO, dont install a Supe2, install the Sup720

    and I missed this:
    The general consensus amongst the Cisco people I know is the Sup2 still has a couple good years left, the routing tables aren't growing that quickly.
    Say WHAT!?! We are at 237k routes now. We were at 200k routes a couple of months ago. Supe2s wont last till the end of this year if you are doing BGP with multiple upstreams.
    Ask them if BGP will work on a Cisco 4948-10GE and they say yes! even though it only has 256 MB ram. Then try and pin them down, and they will admit they meant iBGP or some such nonsense.
    Last edited by 1-dollar-per-mbps; 01-19-2008 at 10:30 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    You can use the Sup2MSFC2 with 2-3 providers accepting provider routes only and not the entire table. Pushing less than 1Gbps of traffic with that setup in BGP works well.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    UrNode - Virtual Solutions
    http://www.UrNode.com

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,662
    Quote Originally Posted by 1-dollar-per-mbps View Post
    Michael, it depends on what you mean by 'only using the sup2 for routing'
    If you mean static, RIP, or OSPF then sure, it is fine. If you are using the 650x as a switch that is connecting to a couple of core routers, then sure, Sup2MSFC2 is fine. In fact, that is what we are doing with the supe2s that we are pulling out of the cores!
    However, if you are talking about doing BGP routing, with multiple BGP carriers, then NO, dont install a Supe2, install the Sup720

    and I missed this:

    Say WHAT!?! We are at 237k routes now. We were at 200k routes a couple of months ago. Supe2s wont last till the end of this year if you are doing BGP with multiple upstreams.
    Ask them if BGP will work on a Cisco 4948-10GE and they say yes! even though it only has 256 MB ram. Then try and pin them down, and they will admit they meant iBGP or some such nonsense.
    ditto, we've got SUP2's doing lower intensity tasks within the network, eigrp/vlanning and they perform great.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    England
    Posts
    399
    OK, the age old debate about the routing table and whether to accepts the full routing table... the hit for other people de-aggregating for traffic engineering purposes, or because they don't know any better etc...

    If you go over to the Cisco NSP list you'll see all sides of the debate. Yes, you can filter what comes in, and you could go to the extreme of tracking the max allocations per RIR and filter on those boundaries, you could also say anything longer than a /24 I want to filter and get rid of a fair amount of crap. However, would I want to do it for the tiny cost differential, not particularly. Bear in mind this is your core infrastructure, what you use to actually provide the service; why be super cheap when the consensus is for the cost differential it's marginal.

    As above, sure, I can get a 3750 to run BGP, it'll max out after a few thousand routes but hey... it still has BGP right.. so what's the difference?

    Ultimately, there are some very knowledgeable people on this forum, however there are also the people who like to get things out the door as cheap as possible; now I'm not saying spending loads of money is always the best option, but I'd always create the 3 scenarios... what's ideal for the purpose? what is going to work and give us a headroom for growth? what could we get by on?

    Rule out what you can get by on, and set the stake in the ground at the middle and don't let you fall into the dark side of that, and approach the business with the best solution, and wait for their response.

    Sorry... a little bit of a rant there!!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    That post wasn't very relative to the discussion and offered the OP no real advice. I could understand going with the best if you needed it or if it was a hard change over to upgrade. A short maintenance window will allow you to go from the Sup2 to a 3bxl when it is needed and you want to carry all the routes.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    UrNode - Virtual Solutions
    http://www.UrNode.com

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,662
    Quote Originally Posted by kris1351 View Post
    That post wasn't very relative to the discussion and offered the OP no real advice. I could understand going with the best if you needed it or if it was a hard change over to upgrade. A short maintenance window will allow you to go from the Sup2 to a 3bxl when it is needed and you want to carry all the routes.
    he was already planning on purchasing a 720-3CXL which is a complete waste of cash. The purpose was to emphasize he can purchase a 720-3BXL and it would be the last SUP he needed to buy.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    Understood now.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    UrNode - Virtual Solutions
    http://www.UrNode.com

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    290
    Thank you for everyones feedback, I'm not going to go into the routing table debate except say that I don't want to spend money for something which is not scalable enough.

    From what I gather from everyone the 3BXL is the sane way to go and the 3CXL is sort of pointless for my purpose and as such a huge waste.

    As for BGP, I have a few transit providers plus I do some private peering as well so a decent routing table limit is necessary.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •