Re: Cisco 861W opinions?

On 6 June, 18:10, Scott <smba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for the reply, Doug. I'm not too worried about the Cisco
command-line interface. Although I've never worked with a Cisco
product before, I am relatively well versed in CLIs, and often times
prefer them to GUIs.

I looked into the 881 series as well but the availability seems to be
much poorer. There are numerous places with the 861W listed as in
stock, but almost every place that has an 881 series lists it as
either 'out of stock', 'unavailable', or 'call'. This makes me wonder

I had assumed, and still do not know either way,
that the 860/880 relationship was similar
to the 850/870.

850
Cheaper
Slower CPU - possible limitation on data rate than
can be supported
Only one VLAN
No "Advanced IP services" software - only needed for very
exotic stuff or more than one VLAN.

870
More expensive
Faster CPU - higher forwarding speed
Up to four VLANS - needs more expensive software "Advanced IP
services"

I am not really familiar with the 860/880.

Here are the forwarding seeds (fast switching - which
is what you get in most cases).

850 10,000 pps 5 Mbps (bits per second)
870 25,000 pps 12 Mbps


860 10,000 pps 12 Mbps
880 50,000 pps 25 Mbps
890 100,000 pps 51 Mbps

NOTE:- these speeds assume the worst case of 64 byte packets. Average
packet size in most cases is much more than this and throughput
correspondingly higher. assuming 250 bytes is still going to be quite
conservative unless you are doing something odd or perhaps VoIP where
small packets are used.

These speeds do not apply to traffic switched within the
integral 4 port (or whatever) ethernet switch. I imagine
that will be wire rate on all ports.

So the 860 will be good for say 50Mbps internet access
unless as mentioned small packets are in use.

Figures from:-
http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/downloads/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf

Hmmm that's a "partners" link. Don't think I am logged on
right now but the ways of the Firefox they can be
quite mysterious. Document may be available otherwise.
Google for [router packets per second 3725 3845]
seems to help. That's how I found it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 6.x, 4.x ipfw/dummynet pf/altq - network performance issues
    ... I'll be able to run some more basic tests tomorrow to see some results, but want to wrap my head around what's actually logically meant to be happening based on adjustments, etc. [I suspect this'll do nothing for the UDP issue, but at least I might be able to pipe some TCP traffic] ... Little packets with ip lengths of 28-29 bytes seem to do the most damage. ... UDP floods are much better handled - an ipfw block rule for the packet type and the machine responds as if there were no flood at all (until total bandwidth saturation or PPS limits of the hardware, which in this case was around 950Mbps). ...
    (freebsd-performance)
  • Re: Strange CPU distributionat very high level bandwidth
    ... Forward performance actually depends on the pps rate and not ... Using 1492-long packets i am ... uppering the number of packets per second i sent In order to see ... Looking more in deep the CPU behaviour i see this: ...
    (freebsd-performance)
  • Re: IP Inspection
    ... packets, that's still over 10 Mbps so I thought it would make a ... this box and internet throughput dropped from 5 Mbps to under 1 Mbps. ... ip inspect name myfw http ... permit icmp any any unreachable ...
    (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)
  • Re: Catalyst 3750G drops packets with IPv4 options
    ... IPv4 packets per second when these packets contained IP options. ... A few entries show less than 0.15% CPU usage. ... can fall back to CPU routing under certain circumstances. ... 87% total CPU of which 29% is fast switching packets. ...
    (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)
  • Re: Test on 10GBE Intel based network card
    ... The limitation that you see is about the max number of packets that ... 1492 byte: 464962 Pps ... dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. ... This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged ...
    (freebsd-performance)