Single 6500 vs. ASR1002's for multi 1-Gig ISP links

[2ndcongress]

I have often heard that the 6500, properly equipped can serve as a high-end router, though I have never tried to use one as a WAN router. 

We have an application that may be a good fit for a 6500 "as a high-end router" scenario.  Looking for advice from others who have attempted something similar.

Here are the application details:

• Application is 99% SIP call traffic (equally loaded inbound/outbound).
• Two, general-purpose ISP connections in the form of 1-Gig Ethernet links.  1-Gig up & down.
• Customer desires to load as much traffic on 1-Gig links as possible with peaks to 90%.
• Traffic would be routed to hosts physically attached to the 6500.
• No need for Session Border Control.  Pass-through only.
• Security need on the WAN connections is basic.  Basic ACL’s to allow traffic from specific IP addresses and IP port filtering is needed.  Basic DoS protections are desireable.
• NAT is needed on a small percentage of the traffic in/out.
• Additional 1-Gig WAN ISP connections may be needed for growth.
• Traffic is not encrypted.
• Inbound traffic would be load balanced across the multiple ISP connections by a separate application upstream (no BGP needed).
• BGP would be desireable but we are having difficulty getting a block of addressess for this.
• Outbound traffic could be distributed via GLBP.

What do you think?  Would a 6500 work for this application with the right processors and IOS version?

[vmiller]

a 6500 'would" work.

My preference based on my own experience (good and bad) would be to seperate the routing/isp function into a router as opposed to a layer 3 swtich. having the switch support the hosts and the wan traffic puts a few too many eggs in one basket. At least with a router in there you get a functional seperation, which may pay off for maintenance issues.

[Leo Laohoo]

NAT is needed on a small percentage of the traffic in/out.

This statement kills your push for 6500.

6500 can't do NAT. 

[markmaytum]

Pretty sure it can.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_configuration_example09186a0080881718.shtml

[Leo Laohoo]

Pretty sure it can.

I checked my notes.  Yes, you are right.  6500 can do NAT.

[Bilal Nawaz]

I think this all depends on if you have quite a dense environment for your WAN and if there's a certain requirement for the amount of ports required. If there is, go for the 6500.

I've used ASRs (1001 and 1002) and have been pushing serious traffic loads, IPTV, Voice, VC and it has never failed since we put them in (about a nine months ago).

ISP's like BT are also rolling out ASRs as managed routers for larger networks and enterprises for customers.

Price difference might be a factor? In which case is it worth going the chassis route of a 6500 (it might be required) or you can go for an ASR which might be cheaper and would do the job just as well as the 6500.

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App