@JeremyCReese wrote:
It's a rather limited router, the small form factor solutions are less robust than even the C8000v.
BTW, that's true too of "larger" ISRs using L2 switching modules, which need to be provided IP via SVIs. Of course, a few of the higher end switching modules are, themselves, L3 capable, and for those, you can configure the ports like a L3 switch.
Also BTW, understanding such performance limitations, often we would have small branches with a L3 switch for fast (wire-rate) LAN routing paired with a WAN router sized for wire-rate of the WAN link. I recall any 800 could pretty well handle a full T-1, and the fastest variants could (about) handle 10 Mbps Ethernet. (Remember, when the 800 series came out, multi-Mbps WAN was unusual because of its cost.
Feature wise, I had found the 800 and 900 series not too lacking compared to larger ISRs. The biggest limitation was overall performance of these models, but they, like other ISRs were designed to be adequate for WAN L3, across specific WAN links, not LAN routing. (In fact, often many would assume an ISR, with whatever built-in Ethernet ports it had, could sustain wire-rate for all those ports. Often, such ISRs could not even sustain continuous wire-rate for even one of its built-in Ethernet ports. Heck, years ago, even the higher end routers might struggle to support one gig port [7200 series] or a couple of gig ports [7500 series, even with VIPs]. We didn't consider 7500s limited or not robust, but we understood what the router was designed to support. I would say ditto for the 800 and follow on series too.)
Lastly, the OP is 16 years old, so consider the suitability of an 800 series router then, not now. Much has improved over the years.
