Thanks David,

As a note, you would would be surprised at the numbers (from Cisco) I have seen for various devices; most products are not even close to full wire speed performance until you get up into the higher product lines. Regardless of interface speed, most of the lower end routers do not even come close to 100 Mbps.

I would like Cisco to chime in here on the UC500 WAN interface because I am not going to sell a product to a client that is mis-represented.

Cheers,

Bob James

David, Bob,

You are right. Line speed on routed ports is not possible for any of our SMB products. Actually, I have never seen an SMB product, from any vendor, that guarantees or supports this performance. Bear in mind that a lot of the default features ( like NAT, IPS, QoS, etc.) also affect thruput. Fast Ethernet is there to offer full duplex communication (not possible with 10BaseT) and also scale beyond 10Mbps. But you won't get 100 Mbps on a routed port.

Marcos

Thank you Marcos

I understand all the overhead associated with all the features, can you give me your best guesstimate as to what the capabilities of the WAN port of the UC540-60's is?

Note that I need to understand what it is capable of, and then QoS and IPSEC will be applied over that.

Thanks

Even though you will find exceptions here and there on this Community, Cisco does not typically share product performance data in public forums. There are some independent studies posted on this Community, but again, we do not advertise them or endorse them. The way to obtain this data is by talking to your SE, who should be able to provide it under NDA. There are basic internal studies that he/she could share with you, where the UC500 has been tested in typical deployment scenarios, mostly using IMIX patterns to simulate traffic.

Thanks,

Marcos

Interesting,

I will talk to the local SE's, but I am surprised that Cisco can post (for example) specs of IPSEC throughput of its' firewalls, yet not give a spec on IPSEC of it's other products.

I am working a very "special" deal right now where the customer has a 100 Mbps private link between the two sites, and if I put the two 560-540 devices in multisite and say best real-world is 25 Mbps, then add IPSEC overhead on top I am looking at 12-15 Mbps performance, it's a deal breaker.....

Data sheet, generic throughput we can share. That is public. But I am assuming you are after more details, which you can get from you pre-sales rep.

Thanks,

Marcos

I'll tkae anything public, but the datasheets, etc. don't have any sort of specs (that I can find)

Bob

Contact me privately and I will share this data with you.

Thanks,

Marcos

I can be emailed at bjames at snetworks dot com

Bob - What I can add to this question is the following:

Maybe for this installation you do not use the UC500 product as your router gateway for this scenario..(it is not required).  If routing a 100meg connection is your concern maybe getting a more enterprise router is in your best interest.   I can say the UC500 product is a good VoIP phone system, it gives the client so many features to enable productivity from any location and it has many features that are huge selling points (like efax - voicemail to email, Single Number Reach, Call connectors).

I think you like the uc500 phone system already.. but have some concerns.  I think the uc500 is an all in one solution for most people but in your case it can still be a really good solution but may require you to use it in conjunction with something you are more comfortable with on the WAN side..

John,

Thanks for your input, yes this is a very confusing proposal, this is a small business (40 users) with big pipes. I went through the possibility of CME/CUE on ISR G2's and SRST with Cisco design, but once you change that segment  you are into 7900 series phones, SmartNet, etc. and it quickly becomes expensive for a small business.

If the client had T1's or something this would be a no brainer (to go the UC route). The best design I could come up with was the separation of voice and data using their existing gear for the data, and new UC's and switches (PoE) for voice. My only issue with this is the limitation imposed by Multisite and the termination of the IPSEC tunnel on the UC500 WAN interfaces. Because the client has a 100M private link that they are currently doing DFS over, the limitation will bring the speed of this link down considerably ( still waiting on final numbers).

The client has been patient and understands they have a unique scenario, but I need to come up with a final design soon. I have a call with the local SE's today to discuss further. I might have to go the ISR route with the chance of loosing this bid to a traditional telephony system, but that might be the best solution for them.

We'll see....

Bob James