On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 03:19:19 PM Mark Mason wrote: > Looking at some potential edge redesign options when > comparing 6880-X-XL [larger route table @ 2M IPv4] & > ASR1004/1006 platforms. Thinking about leaving the edge > routers to ASR's (could be more than 4 carriers - 1 per > ASR) and then route-reflecting down to the new L3 > core/distribution. Moving the L3 / HSRP from the ASR > edge down to the 6880 level and disposing of HSRP. > Thoughts? Current designs? Thinking VSS @ the 6880 level > good choice/bad choice? Would like to you know your > thoughts...
The C6880 is basically an updated 6500. So lots of improvements, but still running the same code family you'll see on the 6500. It's also based on the SUP-2T, which isn't a bad thing. The C6880 is a switch, so if you ever need non-Ethernet ports, the ASR1000 is a better beast. Also, I think you'll get better software feature support on the ASR1000 (not to mention that the ASR1000 is more mature than the C6880). That said, we've bought a truckload of C6880's for use as a core switch. Looking forward to working on them. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
