Bonded T1 with 1720 or 2620
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by on August 25, 2008, 4:44 pm
Please log in for more thread options Need recommendation on which router to use: Currently running a T1 line with Cisco 1720 router (32MB DRAM and 8MB Flash) running IOS 12.2. Company planning on increasing the bandwidth by bonding 2 T1s. Will the current 1720 router be resourcefully enough to handle and perform decently with a second WIC card? Need recommendation on whether to stay with this 1720 router or go with a Cisco 2620. Any idea on the requirement in terms of IOS/DRAM memory/FLASH for both 1720 and 2620 in order to run 2 WIC cards for bonding 2 T1s? Thanks. BV | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Doug McIntyre on August 25, 2008, 5:01 pm
Please log in for more thread options bavien@gmail.com writes: >Need recommendation on which router to use:
>Currently running a T1 line with Cisco 1720 router (32MB DRAM and 8MB
>Flash) running IOS 12.2. Company planning on increasing the bandwidth >by bonding 2 T1s. Will the current 1720 router be resourcefully enough >to handle and perform decently with a second WIC card? >Need recommendation on whether to stay with this 1720 router or go
>with a Cisco 2620. >Any idea on the requirement in terms of IOS/DRAM memory/FLASH for
>both 1720 and 2620 in order to run 2 WIC cards for bonding 2 T1s? Trash both and get a used 1841? First off, you don't need DRAM/Flash for running two T1s. The only thing you need DRAM/Flash for is running the IOS image you want to run. A 2nd T1 doesn't use up more memory (over a tiny slight change in buffer space, barely registerable). Multinklink and/or IP cef have been part of IOS for a long long time. MLFR not so long. The 2620 isn't a huge step up over the 1720. My rule of thumb was always one T1 in a 1720, 2-3 T1s for the 2610/2620 (assuming no NAT/CBAC). The 2600 really can't push much more than that. If you are looking to get another used box, I'd look at a used 1841 instead, although it uses different WIC cards than the 1720 did. (the WIC-1DSU-T1 isn't supported on the 1841). Then you'll have to match the method used by the other side for running the dual T1. (ie. MLPPP or IP cef load balanced). | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by on August 25, 2008, 5:11 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> bav...@gmail.com writes:
> >Need recommendation on which router to use:
> >Currently running a T1 line with Cisco 1720 router (32MB DRAM and 8MB > >Flash) running IOS 12.2. Company planning on increasing the bandwidth > >by bonding 2 T1s. Will the current 1720 router be resourcefully enough > >to handle and perform decently with a second WIC card? > >Need recommendation on whether to stay with this 1720 router or go > >with a Cisco 2620. > >Any idea on the requirement in terms of =A0IOS/DRAM memory/FLASH for > >both 1720 and 2620 in order to run 2 WIC cards for bonding 2 T1s? >
ad,
> Trash both and get a used 1841? > > First off, you don't need DRAM/Flash for running two T1s. The only > thing you need DRAM/Flash for is running the IOS image you want to > run. =A0A 2nd T1 doesn't use up more memory (over a tiny slight change > in buffer space, barely registerable). Multinklink and/or IP cef have > been part of IOS for a long long time. MLFR not so long. > > The 2620 isn't a huge step up over the 1720. My rule of thumb was > always one T1 in a 1720, 2-3 T1s for the 2610/2620 (assuming no > NAT/CBAC). The 2600 really can't push much more than that. > If you are looking to get another used box, I'd look at a used 1841 inste= > although it uses different WIC cards than the 1720 did. (the
> WIC-1DSU-T1 isn't supported on the 1841). > > Then you'll have to match the method used by the other side for > running the dual T1. (ie. MLPPP or IP cef load balanced). Thanks for the quick response Doug. Happen to know the WIC name for router 1841 (if I go with 1841)? Any particular reason NOT going with 1720? Thanks again. BV | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Doug McIntyre on August 25, 2008, 5:24 pm
Please log in for more thread options
bavien@gmail.com writes: >> bav...@gmail.com writes:
>> >Need recommendation on which router to use:
>> >Currently running a T1 line with Cisco 1720 router (32MB DRAM and 8MB >> >Flash) running IOS 12.2. Company planning on increasing the bandwidth >> >by bonding 2 T1s. Will the current 1720 router be resourcefully enough >> >to handle and perform decently with a second WIC card? >> >Need recommendation on whether to stay with this 1720 router or go >> >with a Cisco 2620. >> >Any idea on the requirement in terms of =A0IOS/DRAM memory/FLASH for >> >both 1720 and 2620 in order to run 2 WIC cards for bonding 2 T1s? >>
>> Trash both and get a used 1841? >> >> First off, you don't need DRAM/Flash for running two T1s. The only >> thing you need DRAM/Flash for is running the IOS image you want to >> run. =A0A 2nd T1 doesn't use up more memory (over a tiny slight change >> in buffer space, barely registerable). Multinklink and/or IP cef have >> been part of IOS for a long long time. MLFR not so long. >> >> The 2620 isn't a huge step up over the 1720. My rule of thumb was >> always one T1 in a 1720, 2-3 T1s for the 2610/2620 (assuming no >> NAT/CBAC). The 2600 really can't push much more than that. >> If you are looking to get another used box, I'd look at a used 1841 inste= >ad,
>> although it uses different WIC cards than the 1720 did. (the
>> WIC-1DSU-T1 isn't supported on the 1841). >> >> Then you'll have to match the method used by the other side for >> running the dual T1. (ie. MLPPP or IP cef load balanced). >Thanks for the quick response Doug.
>Happen to know the WIC name for router 1841 (if I go with 1841)?
WIC-1DSU-T1-V2 (ie. only the V2 models work in the ISR and any future models). >Any particular reason NOT going with 1720?
It doesn't generally have the capacity to push many packets. I've seen them run out of steam after 2-2.5Mbps or so of sustained traffic (ie. you don't get your full 2 T1s worth). The 2610/2620 run out of steam around 4-5Mbps. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by on August 25, 2008, 5:32 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> bav...@gmail.com writes:
> >> bav...@gmail.com writes:
h
> >> >Need recommendation on which router to use: > >> >Currently running a T1 line with Cisco 1720 router (32MB DRAM and 8MB > >> >Flash) running IOS 12.2. Company planning on increasing the bandwidth > >> >by bonding 2 T1s. Will the current 1720 router be resourcefully enoug= > >> >to handle and perform decently with a second WIC card?
r
> >> >Need recommendation on whether to stay with this 1720 router or go > >> >with a Cisco 2620. > >> >Any idea on the requirement in terms of =3DA0IOS/DRAM memory/FLASH fo= > >> >both 1720 and 2620 in order to run 2 WIC cards for bonding 2 T1s?
>
> >> Trash both and get a used 1841?
>
> >> First off, you don't need DRAM/Flash for running two T1s. The only
ge
> >> thing you need DRAM/Flash for is running the IOS image you want to > >> run. =3DA0A 2nd T1 doesn't use up more memory (over a tiny slight chan= > >> in buffer space, barely registerable). Multinklink and/or IP cef have
> >> been part of IOS for a long long time. MLFR not so long. >
> >> The 2620 isn't a huge step up over the 1720. My rule of thumb was
ste=3D
> >> always one T1 in a 1720, 2-3 T1s for the 2610/2620 (assuming no > >> NAT/CBAC). The 2600 really can't push much more than that. > >> If you are looking to get another used box, I'd look at a used 1841 in= > >ad,
> >> although it uses different WIC cards than the 1720 did. (the
> >> WIC-1DSU-T1 isn't supported on the 1841). >
> >> Then you'll have to match the method used by the other side for
> >> running the dual T1. (ie. MLPPP or IP cef load balanced). > >Thanks for the quick response Doug.
> >Happen to know the WIC name for router 1841 (if I go with 1841)? >
> WIC-1DSU-T1-V2 > > (ie. only the V2 models work in the ISR and any future models). > > >Any particular reason NOT going with 1720?
>
> It doesn't generally have the capacity to push many packets. =A0I've > seen them run out of steam after 2-2.5Mbps or so of sustained traffic > (ie. you don't get your full 2 T1s worth). > The 2610/2620 run out of steam around 4-5Mbps.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Very helpful. Thanks again... BV | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Bonded T1 with 1720 or 2620 | August 25, 2008, 4:44 pm |
| Re: Bonded T1 with 1720 or 2620 | August 26, 2008, 8:11 am |
| Bonded T1s from different carriers? | January 3, 2006, 1:48 pm |
| Bonded DSL with 2611XM | September 11, 2006, 4:26 pm |
| Bonded T1 - 2xT1 - Upload Help | May 4, 2007, 3:26 pm |
| Sample config of Bonded T1 | August 2, 2007, 9:42 am |
| Cisco 1841 - Bonded DSL Configuration | August 21, 2006, 11:45 pm |
| 1720 help | February 12, 2006, 4:39 am |
| 1720 | December 30, 2006, 7:59 am |
| 1720 and SDM | July 21, 2008, 3:23 pm |
| 1720 and comcast | February 19, 2006, 8:57 pm |
| 1720 IOS Version help | June 28, 2006, 1:14 pm |
| pix 501 w/1720 router. | October 1, 2006, 10:07 am |
| 1720 Router | October 24, 2006, 10:10 am |
| From 1720 to 1841 | November 9, 2006, 3:56 pm |