On 21 January 2016 at 09:13, Adam Vitkovsky <adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk> wrote: >> Peter Kranz >> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:18 PM >> >> Happy to clarify James, to expand: >> >> " Anyone have any thoughts the most cost effective chassis available >> currently that supports 100G ports? Need to route upwards of 200 Gbps and >> handle full tables, but cost is definitely a factor." >> >> I would be using 2x100G ports to upstream providers pulling full tables.. >> and probably 10G LAG groups or 40G ports to feed the downstream user >> who does not have 100G port capabilities. >> >> If I spread across two chassis for redundancy and failover.. then each >> chassis >> would have: >> >> 1 100G port facing an upstream >> 1 100G port facing the other chassis >> 10 10G or 4 40G ports facing the downstream customer Full routes >> >> The application doesn't really support spending $200k on the solution, so I'm >> looking around for something game changing. I think 100G might be too >> young at this point to find it honestly. >> > Maybe the cheapest would be good old ASR9K6, -now with the advent of new > chassis these should be pretty cheap > where each would have just a single A9K-RSP440-LT -that's 180G/slot > upgradeable to 440G/slot (I'm pretty sure customer won't be pulling 200G) > and one 2x100GE and one 24x10GE card > and one power supply (though I'd double check if one is enough) > -you don't need any redundancy in a single box as there are going to be two > boxes. >
Thats what I was just thining except in an ASR 9904. James. _______________________________________________ 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/