We just went through the same over the course of the last 2 years. Replaced our 4G/8G's with 440's or 880's (depending on box load). 440's work great, we have them in both PE's and ASBR's. We run pretty much the full gamut of services. We even accidentally upgraded a PE with 440's to 6.5.3 with appropriate SMU's. We don't plan on backing it down unless we run into a support issue with TAC. IPV4 labeled on 6.4.2 to a 5.3.3 is an issue - doesn't work quite right. With everything 6.4.2 or higher, it's fixed.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:39 AM Jason Lixfeld <ja...@lixfeld.ca> wrote: > Hi, > > We’ve got a bunch of A9Ks whose RSP-8Gs and last supported XR release > (5.3.4) are both EOS. We’re looking to replace them with A9K-RSP440-SEs to > cost effectively get us by for a few more years. > > Today, hardware-wise, the RSP-8Gs support a mix of Trident and Typhoon > based 10G LCs, with Typhoon based 100G LCs additions in the works. We > don’t plan to attempt to introduce any Tomahawk LCs to these boxes. > Feature wise, these boxes run LDP based L3VPN pinned up with IS-IS and > BFD. They take in a couple of full BGP tables, and they also do Profile 4 > mLDP based label switched multicast VPN. > > On paper, the RSP440-SEs support all our current and planned hardware on > up to and including it’s last supported XR version 6.4.2 (32 bit). Feature > wise, I’d be surprised if it didn’t support any of what we’ve got going on, > but there may be some gotchas someone may be able to provide some clue > towards. > > Thank in advance! > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > _______________________________________________ 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/
