> For example, the Cisco 3750G has all of features except for the
> ability to hold 300k+ prefixes. Per CDW, the 48-port version costs
> $10k, so the difference (ergo cost attributable to prefix count) is
> $40k-$10k=$30k, or 75%.
Unfortunately, I have to run real packets through a real router in the
real world, not design a network off CDW's website.
As a simple for-instance, taking just a few thousand routes on the
3750 and trying to do multipath over, say 4xGigE, the 'router' will
fail and you will see up to 50% packet loss. This is not something I
got off CDW's website, this is something we saw in production.
And that's without ACLs, NetFlow, 100s of peering sessions, etc. None
of which the 3750 can do and still pass gigabits of traffic through a
layer 3 decision matrix.
Please excuse me for asking, but you seem to be arguing in a most unusual
manner. You seem to be saying that the 3750 is not a workable device for
L3 routing (which may simply be a firmware issue, don't know, don't care).
From the point of finding a 48-port device which could conceivably route
packets at wirespeed, even if it doesn't /actually/ do so, this device
seems like a reasonable choice for purposes of cost comparisons to me.
But okay, we'll go your way for a bit.
Given that the 3750 is not acceptable, then what exactly would you propose
for a 48 port multigigabit router, capable of wirespeed, that does /not/
hold a 300K+ prefix table? All we need is a model number and a price, and
then we can substitute it into the pricing questions previously posed.
If you disagree that the 7600/3bxl is a good choice for the fully-capable
router, feel free to change that too. I don't really care, I just want to
see the cost difference between DFZ-capable and non-DFZ-capable on stuff
that have similar features in other ways.