|
Cisco Router ModelI need a Cisco router that is 1U, three fast ethernet ports 10/100 is fine and enough ass to NAT 200-300 users over 3 public IP addresses and pass the full wire speed of the ports in terms of data with no issue.
I would prefer something EOL so I can do it cheaply.
I have a 3825 now which is awesome but it is too large. I have no flex from my upstream provider on more than 1U.
I was thinking 1841 but the cost of the HWIC-1 or HWIC-2 is hurting that.
Any ideas on a model? |
|
|
You can do an 1841 with an HWIC-4ESW for about $200
But you mentioned HWIC-1/2 which are serial modules. |
|
|
Sorry HWIC-1FE or HWIC-2FE
Will the 1841 do 100megs/100megs with NAT? |
|
wirelessdog |
to tired_runner
said by tired_runner:You can do an 1841 with an HWIC-4ESW for about $200 Somebody is stating in the Amazon reviews that the HWIC-4ESW will only work with the 1700 series? |
|
TomS_Git-r-done MVM join:2002-07-19 London, UK |
to wirelessdog
I doubt an 1841 will do 300mbit of NAT. In fact I doubt any 1RU ISR (G1 or G2) will do it either.
You'll need to look to something like a 7201 which should be rated somewhere up about 1gbps of throughput.
Alternatively, if you are prepared to look beyond Cisco to Juniper, then you have a number of 1RU and sub 1RU boxes that will handle a couple of hundred mbits with NAT. |
|
TomS_ |
to wirelessdog
They would be wrong.
The WIC-4ESW maybe, but HWIC is supported on ISR G1 and above only. |
|
TomS_ |
TomS_
MVM
2014-Jun-20 4:05 pm
And besides, HWIC slots are limited to about 100mbit throughput themselves, so a HWIC-4ESW is only good as a switch. Capacity out of the switch and to the host router is going to be limited, mostly by the router CPU. |
|
|
|
300 users not 300megs. Wireline speed 100/100 is what I'm looking for. |
|
wirelessdog |
I'm twisting arms here for rack space but I think I may be able to convince him of allowing 2u of rack space. Looking at the routerperformance.pdf even the 3825 doesn't appear to be rated at the throughput I'm looking for. The 3845 is reasonable but I'm above 2u at that point. |
|
·Frontier FiberOp..
|
to wirelessdog
said by wirelessdog:Sorry HWIC-1FE or HWIC-2FE
Will the 1841 do 100megs/100megs with NAT? Shit... How is a 2-port module much more expensive than a 4? The 1841 can negotiate 100 on the interface. Whether it can sustain 100 wirespeed after NAT is whole 'nother story. I use one at home. I've maxed it at 91 Mbps/sec down. Not bad considering overhead. You should expect less than that using a WIC. |
|
TomS_Git-r-done MVM join:2002-07-19 London, UK |
to wirelessdog
You did say full wire speed on all ports ... You'll still be asking a lot from an 1800 to NAT 300 users. And you wont get anywhere near 100mbit from an 1800, especially once you start turning on features like NAT. These boxes are software based, and have weak CPUs, so their throughput is dependent on how much processing they can do. The more features you turn on, the less horsepower it has for routing packets. Cisco branch routers are not built for power, they are built for flexibility. They tend to sit in customer premesis, not the core of a network. A lot of the figures in that performance document are somewhat conservative too... As an example, I have a Juniper J2320 here which I can route 700mbit through. Its 1RU, and has 4 built in gigabit ports. |
|
TomS_ |
to tired_runner
said by tired_runner:How is a 2-port module much more expensive than a 4 The 2 port model provides routed ports, the 4 port model is a switch. |
|
·Frontier FiberOp..
|
to TomS_
said by TomS_: Cisco branch routers are not built for power, they are built for flexibility. They tend to sit in customer premesis, not the core of a network. Don't knock the 1800s so much. They pack a lot of bang for the buck, especially now that they're EOL. 300 users is probably approaching hardware limits though. |
|
|
to wirelessdog
Alternatives are Cisco ASA 5505 (or 5512-X), Juniper SRX 100, and Cisco 1921 router. |
|
·Frontier FiberOp..
|
to wirelessdog
said by wirelessdog: Somebody is stating in the Amazon reviews that the HWIC-4ESW will only work with the 1700 series? They're probably talking about the WIC-1ENET, which would be correct. |
|
TomS_Git-r-done MVM join:2002-07-19 London, UK |
to tired_runner
Not knocking them, I bought an 1811 based on recommendations here and it kicks arse (might have even been yours!). But the situation the OP wants to use this router in means he will need longevity too, and an 1800 probably doesnt have it. |
|
·Frontier FiberOp..
|
to TomS_
said by TomS_: [The 2 port model provides routed ports, the 4 port model is a switch. Ahhhh yes..... D'oh! |
|
TomS_Git-r-done MVM join:2002-07-19 London, UK |
to tired_runner
said by tired_runner:They're probably talking about the WIC-1ENET Yeah, that thing isnt even a proper WIC. Apparently its just an interface to an ethernet controller built in to the CPU used in the 1700 series. It just has the form factor of a WIC. |
|
|
I should clarify, the third ethernet port will access the management vlan of some backhaul radios only. Little to no traffic on that port.
The 1921 looks like it would fit the bill although more money than I wanted to spend. Will it no question NAT 100megs/100megs with 300 users? |
|
TomS_Git-r-done MVM join:2002-07-19 London, UK |
TomS_
MVM
2014-Jun-20 4:25 pm
If you only need a 3rd interface for VLAN access, what would be wrong with trunking two VLANs over one port and managing the radio in-band? |
|
|
I have management access to the radios but the radios belong to my upstream provider.
You are suggesting trunking an interface to the router and setting up sub interfaces in the router? |
|
1 recommendation |
to wirelessdog
said by wirelessdog:I need a Cisco router that is 1U, three fast ethernet ports 10/100 is fine and enough ass to NAT 200-300 users over 3 public IP addresses and pass the full wire speed of the ports in terms of data with no issue. Don't think you'll find anything matching that exactly, wirelessdog . The 1841 _MAY_ do 100Mbps with NAT-only, but you'd leave yourself very little headroom for additional expansion / services. Also you'll want to confirm the compatibility / functionality of the WIC card in question -- as others have said, there's SWITCHED FE interface WICs and ROUTED FE interface WICs. What about a Cisco 7301?I'm also of the mindset that the 1811 -- assuming the 2FE interfaces and a 3rd SVI on the switched interfaces, or as suggested by TomS_ about routed subinterfaces -- could EASILY do this without breaking a sweat. If you want, I'd be happy to lab up one of my spares to your proposed config and loadtest for you. Regards |
|
TomS_Git-r-done MVM join:2002-07-19 London, UK |
to wirelessdog
Yeah, 1-2 sub-ints on the router port facing the router, one for mgmt, the other for data to the remote site. |
|
|
to HELLFIRE
7301 looks interesting. Not finding a lot of selection on the used front for those guys.
1811 is only rated at 35.84 megs |
|
|
to wirelessdog
...let you in on alittle secret wirelessdog , the 180x and 181x can definitely move ALOT more than 35Mb with just NAT enabled That's why I'm curious, do you ONLY need this box to run a NAT inside / outside config, or will it need more service(s) and/or faster connectivity (GigE) down the road? Regards |
|
TomS_Git-r-done MVM join:2002-07-19 London, UK |
TomS_
MVM
2014-Jun-20 5:43 pm
He wants it to do 100mbit full duplex.
Maybe you might squeeze 100mbit in a single direction, but I doubt both. |
|
|
At the moment it will do NAT, DHCP and a few static routes. Keep in mind I do not shape traffic at all. Customer gets what customer pays for so there is high PPS due to p2p traffic. The 7301 is certainly interesting in that it will do 500+ megs. With the Cisco specs which seem to be conservative when they list the megabits is that aggregate speed?
I will be using this router to do fiber connectivity at some point in the near future but the need to exceed the 100/100 connection should be a year or so off in the future.
At that point I may even have a different router at a different physical location doing the fiber connections. |
|
wirelessdog |
Is this: » www.amazon.com/gp/offer- ··· ion=usedAn incorrect picture? I can't find any 7301 that is more than 1U |
|
TomS_Git-r-done MVM join:2002-07-19 London, UK |
TomS_
MVM
2014-Jun-20 5:46 pm
Yeah thats a 7304. |
|
TomS_ |
to wirelessdog
"High PPS" is worrying.
What is your current PPS? |
|