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
Joseph, the NSE-1 was not faster at all. I have been a test engineer for it many years ago.
There's multiple reason's why I had "(?)" after the word faster.
It's certainly true, services not accelerated by the PXF are much slower than delivered on G1 or G2.
Don't have any direct production experience with NSE-1, do have production experience with G1 and 7304 NSE-100 side by side, processing same load. I believe the NSE-100 is nearly the equivalent(?) of the NSE-1, although could be mistaken.
For the NSE-100, it's specs note non-PXF as 450 Kpps and 3.5 Mpps for PXF CEF. NSE-150 specs are 800 Kpps/3.5 Mpps. NSE-1 only found 300 Kpps, but would suspect PXF might also be 3.5 Mpps.
Back to my production usage example with the two side by side, the 7304 showed a considerably lower CPU load. Both routers were Enterprise/Internet connected carrying full Internet tables. Internet side, "busy" OC12.
You mentioned "many years ago", and I think I recall IOS SB release notes describing PXF processing features added in certain versions, so perhaps, during the time period you mention, something like CEF not accelerated on NSE-1.
In the datasheets for the NSE-1 currently on Cisco's web site, CEF is noted as a PXF accelerated service.
Real point of my mention of the NSE-1, I believe Cisco could, if it desired, provide an engine faster than G2.
However, you may still be 100% right about NSE-1 performance with latest provided IOSs, but if not, I'm sure you're 100% correct about it was true "many years ago".
This board have a co-processor (the PXF) intended to hardware process certain services like netflow and NAT. This architecture did not proved successful neither technically or in sales, so the attention was given back to traditional, fast CPU like G1 and G2.
Having used the NSE-100, although pleased with performance, was disappointed with features in SB train not available compared to mainline train. Interestingly, 7304 still(?) available with choice of NSE-150 or NPE-G100, the latter nearly the equivalent(?) of the NPE-G1. So, PXF architecture may not be a total failure - think PXF also used elsewhere(?) in some Cisco products.
The reality of today is that the 7200VXR (G1 or G2) cannot be replaced by anything else for many applications, so Cisco cannot EoS it even if they wanted.
Today, ageed, but again with devices like the latest 3945E nipping at G1 performance and ASRs, if a lower or more entry level model is provided, may in a year or two eliminate the need for the 7200 series.
