2610 Ethernet port speed

[greggsmithjr]

I have a 2610 router.  How can I tell if the built-in ethernet port is only a 10BASE-T or if it's a 10/100 port?  If it's only 10BASE-T, can I upgrade it to 10/100?

Thanks,

Gregg

206-795-0597

[Leo Laohoo]

I'd be looking at a 3925.

In my personal opinion if your organization can't afford to get the right size of router then it's best to downgrade your WAN link that would suit your router.  I mean, think about it:  You have a router that won't go beyond 8 mbps (half duplex, no encryption) and you have a 70 mbps pipe.  So how is your company going to use up 62 mbps? 

If I was allowed another car analogy, your situation is like buying a Bugatti Veyron 16.4 and the "most" you use this is for you to pick up your weekly grocery two city blocks down the road.

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Disclaimer

The  Author of this posting offers the information contained within this  posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that  there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose.  Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not  be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this  posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In  no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including,  without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out  of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author  has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

Since the interface is Ethernet and not FastEthernet, you're looking at 10 Mbps.  Also, good chance this interface is old enough it does not support full duplex.

Yes, you're reading performance correctly.  The small software based routers are really designed to support WAN links, for instance your 2610 would handle a T1 or E1 at capacity, but not 10 Mbps Ethernet at full capacity.

The reason I suggested dividing by 4 is since traffic flows both in and out you need to half performance to allow for that.  Halving the performance rating again allows for services and other things a router often needs to do, such as processing ACL, etc.  This though is conservative since it assumes worst case.  But consider for a 1941 using my recommendation you came up with a throughput rating of only 38 Mbps, but Cisco is even more conservative in that they recommend it only up to 25 Mbps (see attachment).

For 70 to 100 Mbps, you might be able to get by with a 2921 or 2951.  Depending on you service needs, which is what routers do better than switches, a L3 switch might work for you.  Instead of an old 3550 you might also consider the 8 port 3560 or one of Cisco's Metro switches.

[greggsmithjr]

Everyone -- Thank you, I really appreciate your input.  I will be looking at a higher-end router for sure to handle the throughput.

QUESTION: I'd like to use my Cisco switch (WS-C3550-24-PWR) for now until I get the new router.  It sounded like I could use this switch ... from my upstream ISP, I have a /23 IP block and they are using VLAN 758 tagging.  Can I configure this router (SW Version 12.1(14)EA1a) with VLAN 758 tagging on port 24 and connect to the other ports?

Any docs to reference would be greatly appreciated!

Can it handle the 30Mbps?

Again, the plan is for this to be temporary until I get the new router in and configured.

Thanks,

Gregg

[greggsmithjr]

Just to clarify ... I'd like to use port 24 as the WAN port using VLAN 758 tagging and use the other ports as LAN ports using the /23 IP block, as well as using private IPs.  I'd like to do subnetting on both the private and public IPs.

Thanks,

Gregg

[Leo Laohoo]

12.1(14)EA1a

I can assure you that this very old IOS is a Layer 2 only IOS.  Strike one.

The next issue is whether or not the switch can do routing.  Upgrade the IOS to the 12.2(40) and see if you can enter the command "ip routing". 

[greggsmithjr]

If I go into "conf term", IP ROUTING is a command option.

[hobbe]

Hi

I am sorry but I just need to give my 2 cents into this discussion.

You are considering a router to face the internet, fine no problems there.

You are considering a switch to route your internet traffic, hmm well depending on how its done it might work but most likely not.
Have you thought of an ASA firewall ?

Now to the next part that I would like to comment on.

The cisco datasheet for router performance.

One have to bare in mind that that datasheet is for any type of communication

and thus it needs to take into consideration the worst case scenarios, otherwise the people stuck in that scenario would rightfully be quite irritated and rightfulle accuse cisco for not telling the truth.

So Cisco needs to cover all the bases and thus rightfully takes into consideration worst case scenario.

The worst case scenarios would be fx telnet traffic to a minicomputer and so on.that is 64bytes large

Will you be sending that type of traffic ? Not to my understanding. you are asking for a router towards the Internet thus you should be able to use IMIX values for the performance instead of the 64 bytes values. you should be able to assume

aprox 450 bytes as the average size.not 64bytes

so lets count.

PPS = 299000

speed of line = 70 Mbit x 2 = 140 Mbit (inbound and outbound) since we think you have full duplex.

With an Average packet size of 64 bytes this gives you an answer rougly around 146 Mbit divide that with 4 and you will have 36 Mbit wich is way to little.

With an Average packet size of 450 bytes this gives you an answer rougly around 1 gig divide this with 4 and you will have 250 Mbit wich is more than you need.

So this is where I stick my neck out.

IF I am right in thinking that you are a standard company doing Imix traffic, aprox average size 450bytes, a 1941 will suit you just fine.

IF you are a company doing only small packets and/or heavy ipsec stuff with loads of activated stuff on the router then this is not enough for you.

The problem for us all out here is that we have no idea of your trafficpatterns and so on wich means that "we" have to go with worst case scenario and that normally generates alot of overhead in the routers.

Since money is tight, if I where you I would talk to my local cisco rep and have a look at the 1941 or a ASA firewall.

Thats the best advice I feel I can give you

Good luck

HTH

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Disclaimer

The   Author of this posting offers the information contained within this   posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that   there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose.   Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not   be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of  this  posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In   no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including,   without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising  out  of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if  Author  has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

For the later series of ISR, the whitepaper I pulled the graph from in my prior post actual has a table for IMIX performance.  I've attached an image of this table.  You'll see 1941 performance isn't rate at 1 Gbps but only 120 Mbps.  If you divide by two, for duplex, we're now down to 60 Mbps.  Assuming you don't want to run the CPU at 100% and want some CPU for other router processing needs and also want some head room for above expected bandwidth loads is why I divide by 2 again.  This then gives us only 30 Mbps.

[hobbe]

Actually table 5 is the HQoS profile as it states in the text at 75% CPU.

The firewall profile indicates 569 Mbit in the same document, (Table 4)

The imix traffic in this setup was average 409 Bytes.(not all tests where done using imix)

So if we break it down to what we have been talking about and only use this document.

Pure routing is table 1 wich is with 1500 Byte packets

and states 330kpps with 64byte packets wich equals 2932 Mbits with a packetsize of 1500 Non drop.

(wich when we translate it to 450 byte packages equals 879 Mbit routing.)

We can then translate this value into 569 Mbit with the addition of not just routing but also firewalling and imix rate of 409bytes/pkt.

Will this router most likely work just fine for a person that has a 70 Mbit max link ?

We do not know, it might and it might not. this is the reason I said go to a cisco rep that can tell him if it will work in his environment.

If all he does is send small data packets (telnet and so on) then no it will not be an ok solution for him.

If all he does when he saturates the link is routing out huge files, since they use up 1500 bytes, then the solution will be ok for him.

We do not know anything about his traffic patterns other than the fact that he thought that a 2610 might do the trick for him. Wich I think we all agree on that it will most likely not do.

He is tight for money and the price difference on a 2951 vs a 1941 is about 4 times. it is atleast in my book worth taking a look at. for me it works like a charm for a 50Mbit link even when link is saturated. but that is in my environment and that can not be directly used in someone elses environment.

And since it is directly connected towards the internet, are we sure that he is not actually looking for a firewall ?`

Then the ASA5510 is about 2/3 the cost of a 2951.

The recomended WAN speed for 1941 is still 25 Mbit from Cisco.

so Cisco can not be blamed if it does not work.

HTH

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Disclaimer

The    Author of this posting offers the information contained within this    posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that    there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any  purpose.   Information provided is for informational purposes only and  should not   be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind.  Usage of  this  posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In    no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever  (including,   without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or  profit) arising  out  of the use or inability to use the posting's  information even if  Author  has been advised of the possibility of such  damage.

Posting

Pure routing is table 1 wich is with 1500 Byte packets 
and states 330kpps with 64byte packets wich equals 2932 Mbits with a packetsize of 1500 Non drop.
HTH

Table 1 is comparing apples and oranges.

Line rates for 100 Mbps Ethernet are 148,800 pps @64 and 8,100 pps @1500 so

330 Kpps @ 64 = 221 Mbps (not 2,932 Mbps)

2,932 Mbps @ 1500 = 237 Kpps

Since pps requirement is so much less @ 1500 vs. @ 64, quoting performance this way sort of hides the huge performance difference you might see based on packet sizes.

[greggsmithjr]

Hey Joe ... until I can replace my router, I'd like to use my Cisco

WS-C3550-24-PWR switch to do routing. My upstream ISP provided me with a

/23 IP block and they are using VLAN 758 tagging. They installed their own

Cisco switch in my NOC -- so I'd like to connect port 24 of my switch

(making it the WAN port) to their switch and use the other ports as LAN

ports. My switch software version is 12.1(14)EA1a).

To recap: I'd like to use port 24 on my 3550 switch as the WAN port using

VLAN 758 tagging and use the other ports as LAN ports using the /23 IP

block, as well as using private IPs (172. 20.54.0/23). I'd like to do

subnetting on both the private and public IPs.

Can I configure this 3550 switch to do this?

Any docs to reference would be greatly appreciated!

Can this 3550 switch handle the 30Mbps?

Thanks,

Gregg

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Disclaimer

The     Author of this posting offers the information contained within this     posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding  that    there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any   purpose.   Information provided is for informational purposes only and   should not   be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind.   Usage of  this  posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In     no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever   (including,   without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or   profit) arising  out  of the use or inability to use the posting's   information even if  Author  has been advised of the possibility of  such  damage.

Posting

The 3550 shouldn't have any issue dealing with 30 Mbps.  The problem, from what you've described, might be doing both private and public subnetting. Assuming you want to your private network to have access to the Internet, you'll need NAT and that unsupported by the 3550 (or most L3 switches) I believe.