Which router can handle the bandwidth?

[tNscheffer]

I have researched the hell out of Cisco's website and I'm still having trouble with making the right choice.

There will be 5Mbps links from the remote locations to the main location for a total of 20Mbps of WAN bandwidth being handled by the headend router. 2800 series routers at the remote sites and a 3825 as the headend would surely handle this (unless I'm mistaken).

But then I thought of scalability. There may actually be a need to increase the bandwidth up to 20Mbps per link in the future. I don't think the above choice of routers would handle this, but then I'm not experienced with WANs. So do I put a 3825 at each remote site and if so, what do I put at the main site?

Please please help or direct me to useful info. Thanks!

 

[Belushi]

Take from this what you will but there is often a lot of conjecture regarding what an actual router can support in terms of throughput. Oftentimes routers support high speed interfaces but can;t actually route at those speeds. According to Cisco's website the following is true regaring the throughput of the 2800 series line of routers:

Recommended Performance with Services Enabled (IMIX traffic)

Cisco 2801
Up to 1 T1/E1/xDSL

Cisco 2811
Up to 2 T1/E1s/xDSL

Cisco 2821
Up to 4 T1/E1s/xDSL

Cisco 2851
Up to 6 T1/E1s/xDSL

Here is the full link:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5854/prod_qas0900aecd80169bd6.html

IMIX traffic basically means a bunch of services are enabled on the router i.e. - voice, firewall. Honestly, and you're going to get a bunch of arguments here from people when I say this, if you truly want to route at the speeds you are referring to, then ASRs are probably your best bet.

 

[vipergg]

It depends on what kind of interface the isp's are dropping off for you . A lot of them will just drop off a rj45 connection now and you could then just use a L2/3 switch instead of the router unless you need the router for some other function .

 

[DallasBPF]

man... i really wish i knew what ISP's you are all using, the ONLY provider I have seen just drop off a RJ45 was Airband... rest of em bring in T1 Smartjacks to go up to our routers...

------------------------------------
Dallas, Texas
Telecommunications Tech
CCVP, CCNA, Net+

CCNP in the works

 

[burtsbees]

I use Qwest for the MPLS backbone, and AT&Crap for the LEC up to the demarc---they have a smartjack on our side...

But this is strictly a T1, not Metro-E, which is kinda defined as having an ethernet drop-off, I thought...could be wrong...

Dallas---you have Metro-E, over a T1?

/

tim@tim-laptop ~ $ sudo apt-get install windows
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package windows...Thank Goodness!

 

[DallasBPF]

T1... The only thing we have ever used that was close to being Metro-E was GigaMan by AT&T and then another one from Timewarner... both were brought in via fiber though.

The only ISP I have seen that has brought in their service via ethernet was Airband where they have their stuff on the roof that goes to a router and thent hey branch it out to the rest of the suites from there. All other business oriented connections either ISP or MPLS has been brought in via T1 Smartjacks... Well, you could have a T3 connection coming in as well, but then that is brought in via fiber to an AT&T cabinet/rack where they break it down to the ST fiber connection to plug into the router.



------------------------------------
Dallas, Texas
Telecommunications Tech
CCVP, CCNA, Net+

CCNP in the works

 

[tNscheffer]

We are using Metro Ethernet and yes, the hand off is rj-45. I thought that layer 3 switches are only for routing between VLANs on the LAN and not for routing over a layer 3 WAN. I could be wrong though. Maybe someone could explain further? Thanks.

 

[burtsbees]

If you have an ethernet handoff, there is no need for any WAN technology, per se, i.e. a WIC-1DSU-T1, etc, so you can therefore connect straight to an ethernet port and use it to route outside of the LAN, as it operates at the network layer. You could have a regular firewall in front or behind it...

/

tim@tim-laptop ~ $ sudo apt-get install windows
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package windows...Thank Goodness!

 

[silverhairb]

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

[the other] Bill

 

[tNscheffer]

Thanks. Your answers have been very helpful. Does anybody know which catalyst layer three switch would be good to use for this (instead of using routers)?

 

[burtsbees]

I vote for 3750...

A 4506 would definitely do the trick.

/

tim@tim-laptop ~ $ sudo apt-get install windows
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package windows...Thank Goodness!

 

[Belushi]

Maybe you guys missed my initial post or didn't quite grasp it. Go ahead and install a 4500 or a 3560 switch and do routing on it. But you are setting yourself up for problems down the road. Switches are switches and not routers, you will loose all types of functionality that you would get wih a router. For instance, doing any QoS are we??? - Not doing any outbound queueing with those types of layer 2/3 switches. The arguments go on and on.

One of the things the service provider likes to tell the customers is that there is no longer a need for expenssive routers with a RJ-45 Ethernet handoff. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

[burtsbees]

I would not recommend ANY switch on the edge without a firewall...that part is assumed...

/

tim@tim-laptop ~ $ sudo apt-get install windows
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package windows...Thank Goodness!

 

[DallasBPF]

i have to agree with Burt... but for your interVLAN routing... a layer3 switch is more than capable.

------------------------------------
Dallas, Texas
Telecommunications Tech
CCVP, CCNA, Net+

CCNP in the works

 

[tNscheffer]

Thanks, I've actually decided to use 3560 switches on the LAN side as well as 2800 and 3800 series routers on the (private) WAN edge (with ASAs on the public internet edge). However, this has left me with another question...although, I believe it is a question best left for another post. Please take a look at a post entitled "RIP on Cat3560...Will this work?". Thanks again for all your help. I will now post that other question.

 

[VinceWhirlwind]

The 3560 should be like a 3750 - RIP comes with the Basic licence.

 

[tNscheffer]

Apparently I can't edit posts....that other question is posted in the Cisco Switches forum as opposed to the router forum. Just thought I'd add that.

Here's a link:

http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1560808&page=1

 

[tNscheffer]

Thanks Vince. I was actually aware of that, I'm just uncertain of whether or not the setup that I'm planning to use will work. Please check out the post and let me know...thanks.