Results 1 to 25 of 40
Thread: Buying a Cisco 6509-E
-
01-18-2008, 04:39 PM #1Web Hosting Guru
- 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.
-
01-18-2008, 07:19 PM #2Master of the Truth
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- Reston, VA
- Posts
- 3,131
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
-
01-18-2008, 07:55 PM #3Web Hosting Guru
- 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.
-
01-18-2008, 10:40 PM #4Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
01-18-2008, 10:43 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- 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?
-
01-19-2008, 07:28 AM #6Web Hosting Guru
- 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.
-
01-19-2008, 12:47 PM #7Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Posts
- 54
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?
-
01-19-2008, 12:53 PM #8Web Hosting Guru
- 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.
-
01-19-2008, 01:57 PM #9Managed Service Provider
- 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.
-
01-19-2008, 03:18 PM #10Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
01-19-2008, 04:00 PM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 963
-
01-19-2008, 05:07 PM #12Doh!!
- Join Date
- Jan 2001
- Location
- NJ
- Posts
- 2,343
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 routesJay
-
01-19-2008, 05:42 PM #13Master of the Truth
- 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
-
01-19-2008, 05:48 PM #14Doh!!
- Join Date
- Jan 2001
- Location
- NJ
- Posts
- 2,343
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
-
01-19-2008, 07:50 PM #15Managed Service Provider
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 5,662
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
-
01-19-2008, 07:53 PM #16Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Posts
- 963
-
01-19-2008, 10:24 PM #17Managed Service Provider
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 5,662
-
01-19-2008, 10:25 PM #18Disabled
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Posts
- 54
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.
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.
-
01-20-2008, 01:30 AM #19Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
01-20-2008, 01:36 AM #20Managed Service Provider
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 5,662
-
01-20-2008, 07:20 AM #21Aspiring Evangelist
- 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!!
-
01-20-2008, 11:04 AM #22Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
01-20-2008, 12:52 PM #23Managed Service Provider
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
- Posts
- 5,662
-
01-20-2008, 03:42 PM #24Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Posts
- 1,708
Understood now.
-
01-20-2008, 04:31 PM #25Web Hosting Guru
- 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.