North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Force10 Gear - Opinions

  • From: James Jun
  • Date: Wed Sep 03 20:32:58 2008

> >
> > Yes.  PFC3 inside Supervisor 32, 720 and RSP 720 for Catalyst 6500/
> > Router
> > 7600 series perform both of these features in hardware.  The article
> > mentioned in this thread compares Force10 E against the 6500 series.
> Sorry, I was on an installation with 6500s and 720s trying to do uRPF
> and it kept falling back to software and killing the units.  What your
> reading has no reality in my experience.

uRPF was problematic back in PFC2 based platforms (i.e. SUP2) where it is
further dependent upon unicast routes in FIB TCAM. 

uRPF currently works fine enough on PFC3 based sups, the only problem
however is currently only "one or the other" mode is supported for the
entire box, as opposed to per interface.  For example, configuring
loose-mode uRPF in one interface, then configuring a strict-mode in another
will result in entire box behaving as strict-mode interface for all uRPF
enabled interfaces.  Other than this caveat, I never had problems with it.

However, these uRPF issues are fully documented.  Reading manuals and
documentation should help you avoid getting into operational problems such
as "kept falling back and killing the units" scenario.

Control plane policing via cp-policer works quite well on pfc3 based 6500's.
This is ofcourse a very important feature (more important than uRPF in
today's internet IMO) that appears to be missing in f10 gear which is what
Paul was saying earlier.