Router packet per second limits

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by =?iso-8859-2?Q?Jan_Werbi=F1ski?=, Nov 20, 2004.

  1. What is the packet per second limit for routers:
    1600, 1700, 2500, 2600?
    Which of above can be managed with CMS or C. Network Assistant?

    I want to make routing on a server and need only inexpensive V.35 to
    ethernet converter. Is old 2501 good enough for a 2 Mbps frame relay? I'm
    affraid it will limit packets per second. What is the inexpensive choice for
    simple router? It'lave to deal with a few thousand packet per second.

    --
    Jan WerbiƱski O0oo....._[:]) bul, bul, bul
    Prywatna http://www.janwer.com/
    Nasza siec http://www.fredry.net/
     
    =?iso-8859-2?Q?Jan_Werbi=F1ski?=, Nov 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jan WerbiƱski wrote:

    > I want to make routing on a server and need only inexpensive V.35 to
    > ethernet converter. Is old 2501 good enough for a 2 Mbps frame relay?
    > I'm affraid it will limit packets per second. What is the inexpensive
    > choice for simple router? It'lave to deal with a few thousand packet per
    > second.


    2Mbps is 3900 packets/s at 64 bytes/packet (Ethernet minimum), so you
    need something that'll do roughly 8000 pps to be on the safe side (2Mbps
    full duplex: 7800 pps).

    A 2500 is rated for about 4400, so you'd need something a bit beefier,
    like a 1700 series (starts at about 8500 for the 1710 and goes up from
    there).

    Regards,

    Marco.
     
    M.C. van den Bovenkamp, Nov 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <cnofio$1n0$>,
    =?iso-8859-2?Q?Jan_Werbi=F1ski?= <> wrote:
    :What is the packet per second limit for routers:
    :1600, 1700, 2500, 2600?

    Those are all series, not individual models. The different models
    within the series have different performances.

    1601: 4000 pps
    1601R: 4000 pps
    1602: 4000 pps
    1602R: 4000 pps
    1603: 4000 pps
    1603R: 4000 pps
    1604: 4000 pps
    1604R: 4000 pps
    1605R 4000 pps
    1701: 12000 pps
    1710: 7000 pps
    1711: 13500 pps
    1712: 13500 pps
    1720: 8500 pps
    1721: 12000 pps
    1750: 8500 pps
    1751: 12000 pps
    1760: 16000 pps
    2501: 4400 pps
    2502: 4400 pps
    2503: 4400 pps
    2504: 4400 pps
    2505: 4400 pps
    2507: 4400 pps
    2513: 4400 pps
    2514: 4400 pps
    2515: 4400 pps
    2516: 4400 pps
    2517: 4400 pps
    2518: 4400 pps
    2519: 4400 pps
    2520: 4400 pps
    2521: 4400 pps
    2522: 4400 pps
    2523: 4400 pps
    2524: 4400 pps
    2525: 4400 pps
    2610: 15000 pps
    2610XM: 20000 pps
    2611: 15000 pps
    2611XM: 20000 pps
    2612: 15000 pps
    2613: 15000 pps
    2620: 25000 pps
    2620XM: 30000 pps
    2621: 25000 pps
    2621XM: 30000 pps
    2650: 37000 pps
    2650XM: 40000 ppps
    2651: 37000 pps
    2651XM: 40000 pps
    2691: 70000 pps


    :Which of above can be managed with CMS or C. Network Assistant?

    No clue. I've given the model numbers above; I'll let you do the
    googling.


    :I want to make routing on a server and need only inexpensive V.35 to
    :ethernet converter. Is old 2501 good enough for a 2 Mbps frame relay?

    The sites I find seem to suggest that it should be, at least in
    theory.

    :I'm
    :affraid it will limit packets per second. What is the inexpensive choice for
    :simple router? It'lave to deal with a few thousand packet per second.

    Depends what you mean by "a few thousand". 2 Mbps of ethernet would
    only be enough to carry 2976 packets of 64 bytes each plus overhead.
    The 2500 series is rated to 4400 64 byte pps. If your data traffic
    was symmetric full duplex, the implication would be that the
    2500 would top out around 4400 / 2 * (64+20) * 8 = ~ 1.5 Mbps in
    each direction.

    I have never looked into the overheads involved in Frame Relay.
    The overheads of ethernet (e.g., preamble, intraframe gap) are
    equivilent to 20 octets of traffic.
    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
    not tried it. -- Donald Knuth
     
    Walter Roberson, Nov 20, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <419fc78c$0$17011$4all.nl>,
    M.C. van den Bovenkamp <> wrote:
    :2Mbps is 3900 packets/s at 64 bytes/packet (Ethernet minimum),

    No, you forgot to allow for the preamble, CRC, and the intraframe gap.
    The number is closer to 2975 pps.
    --
    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
    -- not Twain, perhaps Disraeli, first quoted by Leonard Courtney
     
    Walter Roberson, Nov 20, 2004
    #4
  5. Walter Roberson wrote:

    > No, you forgot to allow for the preamble, CRC, and the intraframe gap.
    > The number is closer to 2975 pps.


    I know; I skipped a step. I meant at the serial side, and there there
    you have the overhead of CRCs and HDLC headers, so it is indeed somewhat
    lower even there.

    Still, it's a useful upper bound on pps.

    Regards,

    Marco.
     
    M.C. van den Bovenkamp, Nov 20, 2004
    #5
  6. =?iso-8859-2?Q?Jan_Werbi=F1ski?=

    Jim Li Guest

    Also, I think all 25xx series ethernet ports are only half duplex.
    So they will probably do less than the 2975 pps that Walter mentioned.
    --Jim
    M.C. van den Bovenkamp wrote:

    > Walter Roberson wrote:
    >
    >> No, you forgot to allow for the preamble, CRC, and the intraframe gap.
    >> The number is closer to 2975 pps.

    >
    > I know; I skipped a step. I meant at the serial side, and there there
    > you have the overhead of CRCs and HDLC headers, so it is indeed somewhat
    > lower even there.
    >
    > Still, it's a useful upper bound on pps.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Marco.
     
    Jim Li, Nov 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Jim Li wrote:

    > Also, I think all 25xx series ethernet ports are only half duplex.
    > So they will probably do less than the 2975 pps that Walter mentioned.


    Probably not. We were talking about 2Mbps, wheich even half-duplex
    Ethernet can sustain. But yes, the 2500 series is HD only.

    Regards,

    Marco.
     
    M.C. van den Bovenkamp, Nov 21, 2004
    #7
  8. =?iso-8859-2?Q?Jan_Werbi=F1ski?=

    stephen Guest

    "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:cnojjh$h6g$...
    > In article <419fc78c$0$17011$4all.nl>,
    > M.C. van den Bovenkamp <> wrote:
    > :2Mbps is 3900 packets/s at 64 bytes/packet (Ethernet minimum),


    Note - no minimum ethernet frame size on a 2M line.... so you could get
    smaller frames size = more packets. However, 64 bytes is a reasonable number
    to work on with IP/TCP traffic (if that is what you expect).
    >
    > No, you forgot to allow for the preamble, CRC, and the intraframe gap.
    > The number is closer to 2975 pps.


    And these dont exist on a serial line either.

    PPP minimum overhead is 1 flag (shared to show end of 1 packet, start of
    next), 2 bytes PPP header and 2 bytes CRC. You also get some overhead from
    bit stuffing - i usually guesstimeate at 2% for random data.

    Finally it is not a good idea to use Cisco measured numbers as an estimate
    of what is going to happen in the real world - even if you think you wont be
    turning on anything more than static IP routing.

    golden rule is work out how many PPS you need (around 8k pps in this case
    since the ethernet overheads dont apply) - then at least double it to give
    yourself some headroom.

    if you will be buying a new router, then look at the 1841 - several times
    the raw throughput of the 17xx series for a bit more money.

    cisco commit in their introduction to this thing running a T1 / E1 line at
    wirespeed, even with various services turned on such as hardware encryption,
    voice QoS, NBAR etc.
    > --
    > "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
    > -- not Twain, perhaps Disraeli, first quoted by Leonard Courtney

    --
    Regards

    Stephen Hope - return address needs fewer xxs
     
    stephen, Nov 21, 2004
    #8
    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. R Siffredi

    packet per second vs bps

    R Siffredi, Dec 10, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    5,067
    Jim Eviston
    Dec 11, 2003
  2. R Siffredi

    Per packet vs per flow routing

    R Siffredi, Mar 22, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,736
    Hansang Bae
    Mar 24, 2005
  3. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    515
    DVD Verdict
    Sep 30, 2003
  4. JayDubb
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    988
    JayDubb
    Jun 4, 2006
  5. spec
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    486
    Darren Smith
    May 28, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page