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 3945 router, however its throughput is capped at 502mb.
This is the non-E variant?
If so, the 502 Mbps is figured as a theorical maximum for minimum size packets. Cisco also rates this platform at 8 Gbps for 1500 byte Ethernet packets. "Normal" production performance, would be somewhere in between the two.
The 3945E, BTW, for minimum size Ethernet packets, is rated with a PPS almost 3x faster.
The ASR 1000 series, performance wise, starts where the 3945E tops out.
PS:
If you have gig link now, and are only adding another 10% link, you could look at your current loading and platform. The primary additional load would be from dealing with two copies of the Internet routing table, which, with enough RAM, should be also doable on a 3945.
