Bonded T1 with 1720 or 2620

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by bavien@gmail.com, Aug 25, 2008.

  1. Guest

    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
     
    , Aug 25, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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).
     
    Doug McIntyre, Aug 25, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Aug 25, 4:01 pm, Doug McIntyre <> wrote:
    > 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).


    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
     
    , Aug 25, 2008
    #3
  4. writes:
    >On Aug 25, 4:01=A0pm, Doug McIntyre <> wrote:
    >> 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.
     
    Doug McIntyre, Aug 25, 2008
    #4
  5. Guest

    On Aug 25, 4:24 pm, Doug McIntyre <> wrote:
    > writes:
    > >On Aug 25, 4:01=A0pm, Doug McIntyre <> wrote:
    > >> 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.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Very helpful. Thanks again...

    BV
     
    , Aug 25, 2008
    #5
  6. Guest

    On Aug 25, 4:24 pm, Doug McIntyre <> wrote:
    > writes:
    > >On Aug 25, 4:01=A0pm, Doug McIntyre <> wrote:
    > >> 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.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Any particular IOS image that I need in order to run 2 WICs (whether
    using 1720/2620 or 1841)?

    The current IOS image on my 1720 is c1700-sy-mz-122-46.bin

    Thanks.

    BV
     
    , Aug 25, 2008
    #6
  7. writes:
    >Any particular IOS image that I need in order to run 2 WICs (whether
    >using 1720/2620 or 1841)?


    >The current IOS image on my 1720 is c1700-sy-mz-122-46.bin


    Cisco Feature Navigator says for your 1720

    MLPPP requires IOS 12.0T or newer. (Not sure if it even goes back to 11 anymore)

    IP CEF load balancing requires IOS (can't find feature name, probably 11.0)

    MLFR (unlikely to be used) requires IOS 12.3T (or special 12.2 releases).

    So, you're well set for it as it is.
     
    Doug McIntyre, Aug 26, 2008
    #7
  8. Scott Perry Guest

    Here is a sample configuration for you, if it helps:

    controller T1 0/0/0
    framing esf
    linecode b8zs
    channel-group 0 timeslots 1-24
    !
    controller T1 0/0/1
    framing esf
    linecode b8zs
    channel-group 0 timeslots 1-24
    !
    interface Multilink1
    description *** Dual DS-1 PPP Multilink ***
    ip address IP.AD.DR.ESS SUB.NET.MA.SK
    no cdp enable
    ppp multilink
    ppp multilink group 1
    !
    interface Serial0/0/0:0
    description *** DS-1 #1 ***
    no ip address
    encapsulation ppp
    ppp multilink group 1
    interface Serial0/0/1:0
    description *** DS-1 #2 ***
    no ip address
    encapsulation ppp
    ppp multilink group 1

    -----
    Scott Perry
    Indianapolis, IN
    -----

    "Doug McIntyre" <> wrote in message
    news:48b38db1$0$90344$...
    > writes:
    >>Any particular IOS image that I need in order to run 2 WICs (whether
    >>using 1720/2620 or 1841)?

    >
    >>The current IOS image on my 1720 is c1700-sy-mz-122-46.bin

    >
    > Cisco Feature Navigator says for your 1720
    >
    > MLPPP requires IOS 12.0T or newer. (Not sure if it even goes back to 11
    > anymore)
    >
    > IP CEF load balancing requires IOS (can't find feature name, probably
    > 11.0)
    >
    > MLFR (unlikely to be used) requires IOS 12.3T (or special 12.2 releases).
    >
    > So, you're well set for it as it is.
    >
     
    Scott Perry, Aug 26, 2008
    #8
  9. Guest

    On Aug 26, 10:32 am, "Scott Perry" <scott.perry@somecompany> wrote:
    > Here is a sample configuration for you, if it helps:
    >
    >      controller T1 0/0/0
    >       framing esf
    >       linecode b8zs
    >       channel-group 0 timeslots 1-24
    >      !
    >      controller T1 0/0/1
    >       framing esf
    >       linecode b8zs
    >       channel-group 0 timeslots 1-24
    >      !
    >      interface Multilink1
    >       description *** Dual DS-1 PPP Multilink ***
    >       ip address IP.AD.DR.ESS SUB.NET.MA.SK
    >       no cdp enable
    >       ppp multilink
    >       ppp multilink group 1
    >      !
    >      interface Serial0/0/0:0
    >       description *** DS-1 #1 ***
    >       no ip address
    >       encapsulation ppp
    >       ppp multilink group 1
    >      interface Serial0/0/1:0
    >       description *** DS-1 #2 ***
    >       no ip address
    >       encapsulation ppp
    >       ppp multilink group 1
    >
    > -----
    > Scott Perry
    > Indianapolis, IN
    > -----
    >
    > "Doug McIntyre" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:48b38db1$0$90344$...
    >
    >
    >
    > > writes:
    > >>Any particular IOS image that I need in order to run 2 WICs (whether
    > >>using 1720/2620 or 1841)?

    >
    > >>The current IOS image on my 1720 is c1700-sy-mz-122-46.bin

    >
    > > Cisco Feature Navigator says for your 1720

    >
    > > MLPPP requires IOS 12.0T or newer. (Not sure if it even goes back to 11
    > > anymore)

    >
    > > IP CEF load balancing requires IOS (can't find feature name, probably
    > > 11.0)

    >
    > > MLFR (unlikely to be used) requires IOS 12.3T (or special 12.2 releases).

    >
    > > So, you're well set for it as it is.- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Thank you all for your inputs. Greatly appreciated...

    BV
     
    , Aug 27, 2008
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Captain
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    7,093
    mushroom_mover
    Nov 4, 2008
  2. Ken Bettis

    Cisco 6130 with Bonded T1s

    Ken Bettis, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    706
    Doug McIntyre
    Jul 7, 2004
  3. Snowman
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,306
    Snowman
    Aug 5, 2004
  4. Joe Matuscak

    Bonded T1s from different carriers?

    Joe Matuscak, Jan 3, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    Joe Matuscak
    Jan 3, 2006
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    417
Loading...

Share This Page