Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/Aug/17 22:46, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:

> Yes, that’s correct.
>
> The fastest RP in fixed builds is in 1002HX, however it will be still
> slower than what you should expect from RP3.
>
> Additionally, RP3 offers four times more RAM than any other RP on
> ASR 1000 - 64GB vs 16GB in RP2 and in fixed units.

Thanks, Lukasz.

Also worth noting the CSR1000v currently supports up to 16GB of RAM,
although I believe 32GB RAM support should be feasible soon, if not already.

Mark.
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 07:11:06PM +, Erik Sundberg wrote:
> Cisco is coming out with a ASR9901 with in the next couple months, not sure 
> on the release date. I have seen a couple of slides on it.
> 
> 2U
[..]
> 1200w power usage

Not sure I should find that impressive or scary...

(Besides this, the technical data is definitely impressive - and I can
only hope that the 1200w will only be needed if you have the 100G ports
active and running, not for stuff like "8x 10G"...)

gert

-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
   //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Łukasz Bromirski]

Mark,

> On 4 Aug 2017, at 10:43, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> On 4/Aug/17 00:52, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
>> 
>> - the ‘HX’ series currently consist only of 1001HX and 1002HX, so both
>> fixed platforms with some modularity included; there are no HX fully
>> modular chassis, so my comment above was misleading in terms of
>> 1001HX/1002HX supporting RP3 - they simply can’t
> 
> Understood.
> 
> So for all intents & purposes then, the only RP3-based systems today are the 
> fully modular ASR1006-X, ASR1009-X and ASR1013, yes?

Yes, that’s correct.

The fastest RP in fixed builds is in 1002HX, however it will be still
slower than what you should expect from RP3.

Additionally, RP3 offers four times more RAM than any other RP on
ASR 1000 - 64GB vs 16GB in RP2 and in fixed units.

HTH,
— 
./
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Erik Sundberg]

Side Note.

Cisco is coming out with a ASR9901 with in the next couple months, not sure on 
the release date. I have seen a couple of slides on it.

2U
16x Ports for 1G
24x Ports 1G/10G (Configured in blocks of 4 for 1G or 10G)
2x 100G Ports

2x Tomahawk NPU's
456G Backplane
IOS XR 64bit
Front to back cooling
1200w power usage

I sure it will handle some 4M or 10M ipv4 or ipv6.

Also the ASR9906 that come out this month is an option. Not sure it is is 
online yet either.

Check out the Cisco Live slides from Vegas that are online


Erik Sundberg
Sr. Network Engineering
Network Engineering Department
p: 773.661.5532
c: 708.710.7419
e: esundb...@nitelusa.com
Main: 888.450.2100
NOC 24/7: 866.892.0915
350 North Orleans Street, Suite 1300N Chicago, IL 60654
www.nitelusa.com

Managed Telecom Services
MPLS | Ethernet | Private Line | Internet | Voice | Security


-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark 
Tinka
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 3:43 AM
To: Łukasz Bromirski
Cc: Cisco Network Service Providers
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?



On 4/Aug/17 00:52, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:

>
> - the ‘HX’ series currently consist only of 1001HX and 1002HX, so both
> fixed platforms with some modularity included; there are no HX fully
> modular chassis, so my comment above was misleading in terms of
> 1001HX/1002HX supporting RP3 - they simply can’t

Understood.

So for all intents & purposes then, the only RP3-based systems today are the 
fully modular ASR1006-X, ASR1009-X and ASR1013, yes?

Mark.
___
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/



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or 
previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information 
that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person 
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the 
information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY 
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the 
sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original 
transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank 
you.
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/Aug/17 00:52, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:

>
> - the ‘HX’ series currently consist only of 1001HX and 1002HX, so both
> fixed platforms with some modularity included; there are no HX fully
> modular chassis, so my comment above was misleading in terms of
> 1001HX/1002HX supporting RP3 - they simply can’t

Understood.

So for all intents & purposes then, the only RP3-based systems today are
the fully modular ASR1006-X, ASR1009-X and ASR1013, yes?

Mark.
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Aug/17 20:22, Tim Densmore wrote:

> Yeah, this is definitely a piece of the puzzle for some of us.  So,
> discussion about the differences between the various RPs aside, what's
> the real world experience with the asr100x and the 9001?  It sounds like
> BGP convergence is better on the 9001, but has the convergence on the
> 1000 been a major issue for folks?  Is there a common case where a
> router with an RP2 and an  ESP10 or ESP40 is totally inadequate and the
> 9001 is just crushing it (or vice versa)?  I'm thinking of standard
> stuff like a few BGP feeds, IGP, ACLs, QoS and MPLS L2/L3 VPNs.  We've
> been pretty happy with the asr1004 as a platform, but we're not doing
> anything super cutting edge with it, either.

We use the ASR1002-X for low-capacity exchange points, and ASR9001's or
MX480's (used to be MX80 and MX104) for peering at high-capacity
exchange points.

While we like the ASR1000 platform, it's not the best for high-density
Ethernet (which is generally the type of environment your peering nodes
live in). So it makes sense to move to either the ASR9000 or MX
platforms if a site starts to scale up.

We do use the ASR1006's for PoP's that need to support non-Ethernet
hand-offs to customers, but these are few and far between.

As an overall platform, the ASR1000 is very good. We really like it,
which is why we rely on the CSR1000v (IOS XE) as our RR. We've had no
BGP performance issues worth nothing on this platform, either on the RP2
or CSR1000v. So I'm confident that RP3 would be a dream.

We don't believe in having large routers (physically) for peering or
upstream interconnects, especially since we have plenty of PoP's around
the world where we perform these activities. The ASR9001 is a much
better platform than the MX80 or MX104, which is why we've ended up
using the MX480 as our new peering and upstream router for places that
were previously running the MX80 or MX104. I don't see us using the
chassis-based ASR9000 routers in the near-term, as the ASR9001 still has
some ways to go.

Mark.
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Łukasz Bromirski]

Mark,

> On 3 Aug 2017, at 10:39, Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> ‘HX’ versions are current-gen, newest boxes, that can use
>> RP3 and up to 64GB of RAM. For fixed options there are 1001HX and 1002HX
>> as of now and they scale up to 16GB of physical RAM (1001HX)
>> and 32GB of physical RAM (1002HX).[1]
> So just to clarify, the fixed -HX units are all RP3-based, yes?

Sorry, mixed couple of things in one paragraph. To clarify my clarification:

- RP1 is PowerPC based, long gone, not very bad, but FIB programming
for example was not stellar in terms of speed

- RP2 and RP3 are x86 64-bit capable, with RP3 only recently getting
support in 16.3 train which may be showstopper for some of you

- RP2 supports maximum of 16GB, while RP3 supports up to 64GB

- 1001HX in terms of RP performance envelope is closer to 1002X, so
RP2 based system; fixed configs have usually slightly scaled down Xeons
inside to meet more restrictive temperature environment

- 1002HX RP performance is around that of RP2, however in some
scenarios can be 20-25% faster; again, fixed platform having it’s own
requirements that are absent in fully modular chassis and more powerful
fans and cooling capabilities

- the ‘HX’ series currently consist only of 1001HX and 1002HX, so both
fixed platforms with some modularity included; there are no HX fully
modular chassis, so my comment above was misleading in terms of
1001HX/1002HX supporting RP3 - they simply can’t

HTH,
— 
./

___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Patrick M. Hausen]

Hi,

> Am 03.08.2017 um 23:58 schrieb Łukasz Bromirski :
> For that kind of scenario, Sup720-10GE can still do it’s job if
> You use Selective Route Download. You don’t need full tables as
> Spotify’s SIR project have shown. You’re even better than Spotify,
> as You’re end station for the traffic, not transit as I understood.
> Just take a look here (and read on):
> https://labs.spotify.com/2016/01/26/sdn-internet-router-part-1/

Great link, thanks!

> Also, try to stick to 15.xS lines. It seems You’re doing quite simple things
> and there’s no real value in staying on 12.2(33) line unless some
> hardware dependencies.

15.xS fails with continuously resetting the BGP process as soon as the
second full feed is activated due to memory allocation failures.
That's why I specifically downgraded our switches at 5am this morning :-/

At the moment 6 peers, 4x full feed, everything running fine.
RP memory at 90% utilization, though. TCAM 78% v4, 39% v6.

> BTW, you can upgrade RAM on 720-10GE to 2GB. This is of course not
> officially supported, but as You’re anyway running on refubrished equipment,
> you don’t care that much. Just remember to upgrade both RP and SP
> memory, as in theory with this Sup you wouldn’t need to care anymore
> as SP is just a stub, but may actually play buffer allocation tricks
> and if there’s disrepancy between RP and SP RAM size, you may
> run into trouble (RP loosing SP, stalling and then rebooting on
> watchdog - it isn’t pretty and for sure - not predictable).

Another great advice - thanks again.
Patrick


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Bill Woodcock]

>> On 3 Aug 2017, at 09:10, Patrick M. Hausen  wrote:
>> 
>> The use case is simply "full tables BGP" with currently 4x 1GB/s
>> uplinks and possibly 6 in the near future. Upgrade to something
>> 10G-ish not planned at the moment. 300-400 Mbit/s aggregate
>> traffic across all uplinks currently.

What about an ISR4451?  Rock-solid, have 10x the throughput you need, they just 
don’t do 10G interfaces.  And way cheaper than any of the other options you’ve 
discussed.  It seems like it might be “good enough for long enough” and then 
you could recycle it in some other use when it comes time for an upgrade (and 
when there’s something palatable to upgrade to, like perhaps the ASR9901 that 
was mentioned yesterday).

-Bill






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Łukasz Bromirski]

> On 3 Aug 2017, at 09:10, Patrick M. Hausen  wrote:
> 
> The use case is simply "full tables BGP" with currently 4x 1GB/s
> uplinks and possibly 6 in the near future. Upgrade to something
> 10G-ish not planned at the moment. 300-400 Mbit/s aggregate
> traffic across all uplinks currently.

Quite low aggregate bandwidth needs for 6500 :)

> So we are too memory heavy for the C6500 (SUP720-10G) and
> then there's the TCAM limitation ... although our bandwidth requirements
> are rather small. And then the C6500 definitely starts to rot - I wonder
> if I will ever get anything beyond 12.2(33)SXJ10 if (when!) the next
> remote security bug hits.

For that kind of scenario, Sup720-10GE can still do it’s job if
You use Selective Route Download. You don’t need full tables as
Spotify’s SIR project have shown. You’re even better than Spotify,
as You’re end station for the traffic, not transit as I understood.
Just take a look here (and read on):
https://labs.spotify.com/2016/01/26/sdn-internet-router-part-1/ 


You should live well with the same traffic engineering accuracy
with anywhere between 30k and 60-70k for IPv4 unicast put into
FIB and then into TCAMs. At the same time, You should be fine
(maybe with *some* filtering) to fit the 4-6 tables in RAM while
doing SRD (that will select specific routes and put only them as
candidates for FIB installation via BGP).

This however assumes, You want to play with CLI and possibly
NetFlow data to correlate telemetry.

Also, try to stick to 15.xS lines. It seems You’re doing quite simple things
and there’s no real value in staying on 12.2(33) line unless some
hardware dependencies.

BTW, you can upgrade RAM on 720-10GE to 2GB. This is of course not
officially supported, but as You’re anyway running on refubrished equipment,
you don’t care that much. Just remember to upgrade both RP and SP 
memory, as in theory with this Sup you wouldn’t need to care anymore
as SP is just a stub, but may actually play buffer allocation tricks
and if there’s disrepancy between RP and SP RAM size, you may
run into trouble (RP loosing SP, stalling and then rebooting on
watchdog - it isn’t pretty and for sure - not predictable).

— 
./
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Tim Densmore]

On 8/3/2017 1:10 AM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> The 9001 would probably cost us 3 to 4 times as much per
> box as the 1001-X.

Yeah, this is definitely a piece of the puzzle for some of us.  So,
discussion about the differences between the various RPs aside, what's
the real world experience with the asr100x and the 9001?  It sounds like
BGP convergence is better on the 9001, but has the convergence on the
1000 been a major issue for folks?  Is there a common case where a
router with an RP2 and an  ESP10 or ESP40 is totally inadequate and the
9001 is just crushing it (or vice versa)?  I'm thinking of standard
stuff like a few BGP feeds, IGP, ACLs, QoS and MPLS L2/L3 VPNs.  We've
been pretty happy with the asr1004 as a platform, but we're not doing
anything super cutting edge with it, either.

Thanks,

Tim Densmore

___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[James Jun]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:58:48AM +0100, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> Again, MX104 is/was competing with ASR903 or ASR902. 
> Seems line everyone forgot about the ASR903? Such a good work horse. 
> 

FWIW, we tried rolling out ASR903 w/ RSP3 and it ended up being a total complete
disaster.  The software (Everest 16.5) to support bridging, VPLS and FAT-PW is
quite not mature (i.e. FP crashes and disconnects from RP within 2 minutes from
box starting to move traffic) and still have long ways to go.

I'm sure older IOS XE 3.16.x is probably production ready, but 36x 10GE box is
quite useless for me if it can't support FAT-PW on the Nx10GE uplink bundles,
which brought us to Everest release code that would support FAT-PW.

I see that there is new update to Everest release (16.6), but at this point, 
frankly
we ended up using ASR 9001 on sites that needed ASR903s.  It's costlier sure, 
but
we needed a box that could do everything on day 1, and didn't have time to ride
the development roadmap of a new product any further.

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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Aug/17 09:58, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:

> Again, MX104 is/was competing with ASR903 or ASR902. 

Could have been, but it also finds itself competing with the ASR1000.
Juniper just don't have anything else in their arsenal at the moment,
for this range of kit.

> Seems line everyone forgot about the ASR903? Such a good work horse. 

For some reason, that platform has never blown my skirt up...

That said, I'm looking forward to the ASR920 replacement (or, rather,
new cousin).

Mark.
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Aug/17 08:40, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:

> Couple clarifications.

Many thanks, Lukasz!


>
> ‘HX’ versions are current-gen, newest boxes, that can use
> RP3 and up to 64GB of RAM. For fixed options there are 1001HX and 1002HX
> as of now and they scale up to 16GB of physical RAM (1001HX)
> and 32GB of physical RAM (1002HX).[1]

So just to clarify, the fixed -HX units are all RP3-based, yes?

Mark.
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[adamv0025]

> Mark Tinka
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 12:44 PM
> 
> Juniper have no choice but to keep the MX80 and MX104 as an ASR1000
> competitor. None of the M-series boxes are ideal for that. If they don't
> revamp this particular line, Cisco will continue to overtake them in that
area.
> 
Again, MX104 is/was competing with ASR903 or ASR902. 
Seems line everyone forgot about the ASR903? Such a good work horse. 

adam  

netconsultings.com
::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry::

___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[adamv0025]

> Saku Ytti
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 12:32 PM
> 
> MX104 is 1GE optimised SP router, there is no such device available or in
the
> pipeline from JNPR, CSCO,  NOK .
> 
What about ASR903? They even look like twins :)  
Sure with RSP3 ASR903 moved into the 100GE game but the old ones -same thing
as MX104. 

netconsultings.com
::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry::

___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Patrick M. Hausen]

Hi!

> As for comparisions - 1001/1002/1002F are no longer in game,
> and while they perform decently for control plane, even first gen ASR 9k’s
> (like 9001/9001S and RP1s for 9006/9010) will beat them unless you
> go for RR role in a specific config (SRD) - as Ytti mentioned, BGP on
> 32 bit IOS-XR has memory limitations per process. This is not
> Patrick use case however I believe.

The use case is simply "full tables BGP" with currently 4x 1GB/s
uplinks and possibly 6 in the near future. Upgrade to something
10G-ish not planned at the moment. 300-400 Mbit/s aggregate
traffic across all uplinks currently.

So we are too memory heavy for the C6500 (SUP720-10G) and
then there's the TCAM limitation ... although our bandwidth requirements
are rather small. And then the C6500 definitely starts to rot - I wonder
if I will ever get anything beyond 12.2(33)SXJ10 if (when!) the next
remote security bug hits.

> Going back to original question - if that’s going to be refubrished unit,
> 9001 propably fits the bill in the best way. 9904 in the new data center
> is propably the best choice given your requirements.

Yeah, the 9904 looks quite nice. Don't know if it's available refurbished,
already. The 9001 would probably cost us 3 to 4 times as much per
box as the 1001-X. I haven't received a written quote yet and I'm
unsure about the cost if the 20G and 2x10GE licenses. We'll see.

> Stay off the ASR9k cluster licenses BTW :) You don’t need them for
> your use case.

So I figured already. The new boxes will be all layer 3, so no need to
mess with VSS and sons to get multi-chassis portchannel etc.

Thanks to all for your valuable input.
I'll report what we got ;-)

Patrick


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Lukas Tribus]

> as a point of correction — iirc — asr1002x is running closer to an rp2.
> i don’t have one available to me at the moment, but i believe the code
> indicates as such.  comparing the ram, route, etc numbers leads me to
> believe this is true.

Agreed, the RP1 is a 32 bit platform and can only use 4 Gigs of RAM.
8 and 16 GB capable boxes are 64 bit (therefor >= RP2).

RP1 also has a terribly FIB convergence.

As the datasheet says: ASR 1002 and ASR 1002-F are the only boxes
with RP1, everything else is not a RP1 (including 1002X).

Lukas
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[James Jun]

> based on what i???m reading ??? the asr1002hx is closer to an rp3-based 
> platform, again ??? comparing the numbers.  i could be wrong on this.
> 

ASR 1002-HX has quad-core 2.5 Ghz, I'd say it is architecturally more closer to 
RP3.

RP3 has quad-core 2.2Ghz.  The slightly higher clock speed on 1002-HX is 
because the RP CPU also
controls the built-in ESP control-plane.

Check pages 72 and 67 on 
https://www.slideshare.net/Cisco/hawaii-tech-day-routing-platform-update-75001130


And I can't imagine that ASR1K RP2 will beat down ASR 9001 on BGP.  Perhaps so 
on single full feed RP2
is probably much faster, but it is still IOS XE.  I would imagine that on a 
peering/transit router 
scenario with multiple full feeds, ASR 9001 would scale much better.  FWIW, I 
never had problems with
ASR 9001 ever bogging down when sucking in 3-4 full tables.

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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Aug/17 21:33, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:

> Yet I still have
> to find a document stating that explicitly.

The joys of our vendors...

Mark.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Patrick M. Hausen]

Hi,

> Am 02.08.2017 um 21:24 schrieb Mark Tinka :
> On 2/Aug/17 19:07, quinn snyder wrote:
>> as a point of correction — iirc — asr1002x is running closer to an rp2.  i 
>> don’t have one available to me at the moment, but i believe the code 
>> indicates as such.  comparing the ram, route, etc numbers leads me to 
>> believe this is true.
>> 
>> 
>> based on what i’m reading — the asr1002hx is closer to an rp3-based 
>> platform, again — comparing the numbers.  i could be wrong on this.
> 
> I could get into it, but hopefully this helps:
> 
> 
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-1000-series-aggregation-services-routers/data_sheet_c78-441072.html

The 1001-X as well as the 1002-X both come with 8 GB memory
as a default and are expandable to 16 GB.

If the limits in the data sheet you linked hold for the embedded
platforms all the same, they must have an RP2. Yet I still have
to find a document stating that explicitly.

Patrick


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Aug/17 19:07, quinn snyder wrote:

> as a point of correction — iirc — asr1002x is running closer to an rp2.  i 
> don’t have one available to me at the moment, but i believe the code 
> indicates as such.  comparing the ram, route, etc numbers leads me to believe 
> this is true.
>
> based on what i’m reading — the asr1002hx is closer to an rp3-based platform, 
> again — comparing the numbers.  i could be wrong on this.

I could get into it, but hopefully this helps:

   
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-1000-series-aggregation-services-routers/data_sheet_c78-441072.html

Mark.
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[quinn snyder]

> On 2Aug, 2017, at 03:24, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> On 2/Aug/17 12:10, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> 
>> So, any remarks about the 1002?
> 
> It depends; there are different ASR1002's.
> 
> The ASR1002-X and the ASR1002-HX.
> 
> The ASR1002-X is older, and runs the RP1, which is the slower one. We
> use them for a bit of peering, and it's not bad - certainly better than
> the MX80 and MX104's RE’s.

as a point of correction — iirc — asr1002x is running closer to an rp2.  i 
don’t have one available to me at the moment, but i believe the code indicates 
as such.  comparing the ram, route, etc numbers leads me to believe this is 
true.

> The ASR1002-HX is on RP2.

based on what i’m reading — the asr1002hx is closer to an rp3-based platform, 
again — comparing the numbers.  i could be wrong on this.

> 
> Stay away from the ASR1002 or ASR1002-F. Those are too old for life.
> 
> In general, I'd say focus on the RP2 and RP3 chassis.

agreed.

q.

--
quinn snyder | snyd...@gmail.com
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Patrick M. Hausen]

Hi, all,

> Am 02.08.2017 um 12:24 schrieb Mark Tinka :
> It depends; there are different ASR1002's.
> 
> The ASR1002-X and the ASR1002-HX.
> 
> The ASR1002-X is older, and runs the RP1, which is the slower one. We use 
> them for a bit of peering, and it's not bad - certainly better than the MX80 
> and MX104's RE's.
> 
> The ASR1002-HX is on RP2.
> 
> Stay away from the ASR1002 or ASR1002-F. Those are too old for life.

And in typical Cisco style we've all come to love it's really hard to find
a single table with the relevant performance figures for all the different 
models. :-(

pps/bps - yes, routes - no.

I finally found this:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-1000-series-aggregation-services-routers/datasheet-c78-731640.html

Summary:

Cisco ASR 1002-HX with Integrated ESP Module
Up to:
4,000,000 IPv4 or 4,000,000 IPv6 routes
Multicast: 100,000 routes and 44,000 groups

Cisco ASR 1001-HX with Integrated ESP Module
Up to:
1,000,000 IPv4 or 1,000,000 IPv6 routes with 8-GB memory
3,500,000 IPv4 or 3,000,000 IPv6 routes with 16-GB memory
Multicast: 64,000 routes and 4000 groups

Cisco ASR 1001-X with Integrated ESP Module and 8-GB Memory
Up to:
1,000,000 IPv4 or 1,000,000 IPv6 routes with 8-GB memory
3,500,000 IPv4 or 3,000,000 IPv6 routes with 16-GB memory
Multicast: 100,000 routes and 4,000 groups

Cisco ASR 1002-X with Integrated 36-Gbps ESP Module and 8-GB Memory
Up to:
500,000 IPv4 or 500,000 IPv6 routes with 4-GB memory
1,000,000 IPv4 or 1,000,000 IPv6 routes with 8-GB memory
3,500,000 IPv4 or 3,000,000 IPv6 routes with 16-GB memory
Multicast: 64,000 routes and 4,000 groups

So ... as long as it's at least a 1001-X with 16 GB of memory we should be good 
to go.
The "up to 20 Gbps" are definitely enough for now.

Thanks, guys, I'll continue to discuss details and prices with my supplier.
Patrick


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Aug/17 13:38, Saku Ytti wrote:

> This would surprise me very much. I see MX80/MX104 as ASR9001
> competitor. If JNPR thought they were competing with ASR1k, they are
> extremely confused. ASR1k does NAPT, statefull firewall, encryption
> etc. Juniper really doesn't have ASR1k competitor, but SRX is closer
> than MX.

Just so my comments are clear - the new box will replace the MX80/MX104
from an Ethernet standpoint. However, it won't replace them from a
non-Ethernet standpoint.

So yes, if customers still want non-Ethernet capabilities as well as
low-to-medium speed Ethernet interconnects, the MX80/MX104 will
certainly remain. But like I said, there is no indication from Juniper
that they are going to introduce an Intel-based RE for the MX104.

Juniper have no choice but to keep the MX80 and MX104 as an ASR1000
competitor. None of the M-series boxes are ideal for that. If they don't
revamp this particular line, Cisco will continue to overtake them in
that area.

Mark.
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Saku Ytti]

On 2 August 2017 at 14:34, Mark Tinka  wrote:

> The box was designed to compete with the ASR1000, which offers Ethernet
> + non-Ethernet versatility.

This would surprise me very much. I see MX80/MX104 as ASR9001
competitor. If JNPR thought they were competing with ASR1k, they are
extremely confused. ASR1k does NAPT, statefull firewall, encryption
etc. Juniper really doesn't have ASR1k competitor, but SRX is closer
than MX.

-- 
  ++ytti
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Aug/17 13:31, Saku Ytti wrote:

> Debatable.

It's coming, and it's designation is not very far from MX104 :-)...


> MX104 is 1GE optimised SP router, there is no such device available or
> in the pipeline from JNPR, CSCO,  NOK .

Not only 1Gbps-optimized, but also non-Ethernet optimized. As you say,
no such box from Juniper that supports Trio exists today apart from the
MX104.

>
> If you're mostly not interested in 1GE, then there are plenty of
> sensible options.

The new box is more Ethernet-focused, and is meant to replace both the
MX80 and MX104 in one go.

Mark.
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Saku Ytti]

On 2 August 2017 at 13:24, Bill Woodcock  wrote:


> The NCS5501 looks like it’ll be great for medium-to-high throughput but 
> low-complexity sites, particularly when paired with a Nexus 92300YC or 
> 93180YC-EX switch.  If the memory limitations don’t prove to be too 
> constraining.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/corporate-strategy-office/acquisitions/leaba.html

Guys who made BRCM Jericho started Leaba, Cisco bought Leaba. My 1+1
says Cisco's Jericho platforms are TTM and I'd be worried about
engineering focus shifting to Cisco IP products.

-- 
  ++ytti
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Aug/17 13:26, Gert Doering wrote:

> In which regards?  BGP convergence, general stuff, or "just the filesystem
> annoyance"?  Curious, because I haven't seen anything as fast for BGP as
> the ASR9k yet ("session up to full table loaded" in less than 45 seconds),
> but I have no experience with ASR1k.

Just in general.

BGP convergence time is not too bad, but the Intel-based MX is a lot
faster in that regard, from experience.

No real complaints about the ASR9001, to be honest, apart from the
heavy-handed IOS XR upgrades.


> Why MX104 got a PPC based RE to start with, and got a different form
> factor so MX240 REs wouldn't fit, is one of the deep mysteries I'm not
> sure I ever want to know more about.

Power budget dictated the RE, which is why an Intel-based RE will never
come to the box.

The box was designed to compete with the ASR1000, which offers Ethernet
+ non-Ethernet versatility.

The MX240 and above and the ASR9000 chassis are not suited to
non-Ethernet line cards, even if they support them.

Mark.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Saku Ytti]

On 2 August 2017 at 13:05, Mark Tinka  wrote:

> Juniper are working on a new MX unit, Intel-based, as an upgrade to the
> MX104. So anyone who was holding out for a sane RE on the MX104 can
> start breathing now.

Debatable.

MX104 is 1GE optimised SP router, there is no such device available or
in the pipeline from JNPR, CSCO,  NOK .

If you're mostly not interested in 1GE, then there are plenty of
sensible options.
-- 
  ++ytti
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:10:42PM +0200, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> ASR 9006 OTOH are rather cheap for their capabilities he claims - but 
> definitely

9006 is "big, clunky, and you need to be careful which generation line
cards you get" - I wouldn't go there unless you have studied RP/LC options
in more detail.  Benefit, of course, would be that you can run dual-RP
which helps with some of the software upgrade annoyances.

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
   //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:05:36PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> I also find the ASR9001 a lot slower than the ASR1000 (RP2). 

In which regards?  BGP convergence, general stuff, or "just the filesystem
annoyance"?  Curious, because I haven't seen anything as fast for BGP as
the ASR9k yet ("session up to full table loaded" in less than 45 seconds),
but I have no experience with ASR1k.

[..]
> Juniper are working on a new MX unit, Intel-based, as an upgrade to the
> MX104. So anyone who was holding out for a sane RE on the MX104 can
> start breathing now.

Why MX104 got a PPC based RE to start with, and got a different form
factor so MX240 REs wouldn't fit, is one of the deep mysteries I'm not
sure I ever want to know more about.

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
   //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Nikolay Shopik]

On 02/08/17 13:10, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> 
>> Am 02.08.2017 um 12:05 schrieb Mark Tinka :
>> On 2/Aug/17 11:58, Gert Doering wrote:
>>> This is what we currently do for "BGP edge", and I totally love the
>>> box.  Even though software updates are as annoying, mostly because the
>>> flash disk is so slw so the fairly complex processes take ages,
>>> and then a bit.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I also find the ASR9001 a lot slower than the ASR1000 (RP2). But it's not as 
>> bad as the PPC-based MX's.
> 
> My preferred supplier just called in telling me that ASR 9001 are way more 
> expensive
> currently than, say, ASR 1002 with RP2. I'll get a quote later today.
> 
> ASR 9006 OTOH are rather cheap for their capabilities he claims - but 
> definitely
> too big for the current project. Possibly for the new data centre ...

There also newer ones Cisco 9901 its fixed 2U chassis with 16X1G,
24X1G/10G, 2X100G which is intel based and support 64bit IOS-XR, but I'm
not sure when they plan to release them, maybe Q1 2018.

Licensing wise its - PAYG model 120G,240G,360G,456G
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Aug 2, 2017, at 3:10 AM, Patrick M. Hausen  wrote:
> My preferred supplier just called in telling me that ASR 9001 are way more 
> expensive
> currently than, say, ASR 1002 with RP2. I'll get a quote later today.
> ASR 9006 OTOH are rather cheap for their capabilities he claims - but 
> definitely
> too big for the current project. Possibly for the new data centre ...
> So, any remarks about the 1002?

PCH has a lot of ASR9001s and ASR9006s in production.  A few ASR1001X.  We’re 
just doing the lab-work now to figure out whether the NCS5501 can replace the 
ASR9006 in some situations.

The 9001 is a real workhorse, and we continue to buy them.  The ASR1001X is 
just a little too small to work for our medium-sized sites, and too expensive 
for our small sites.

The NCS5501 looks like it’ll be great for medium-to-high throughput but 
low-complexity sites, particularly when paired with a Nexus 92300YC or 
93180YC-EX switch.  If the memory limitations don’t prove to be too 
constraining.

-Bill






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Aug/17 12:10, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:

> So, any remarks about the 1002?

It depends; there are different ASR1002's.

The ASR1002-X and the ASR1002-HX.

The ASR1002-X is older, and runs the RP1, which is the slower one. We
use them for a bit of peering, and it's not bad - certainly better than
the MX80 and MX104's RE's.

The ASR1002-HX is on RP2.

Stay away from the ASR1002 or ASR1002-F. Those are too old for life.

In general, I'd say focus on the RP2 and RP3 chassis.

Mark.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Patrick M. Hausen]

Hi all,


> Am 02.08.2017 um 12:05 schrieb Mark Tinka :
> On 2/Aug/17 11:58, Gert Doering wrote:
>> This is what we currently do for "BGP edge", and I totally love the
>> box.  Even though software updates are as annoying, mostly because the
>> flash disk is so slw so the fairly complex processes take ages,
>> and then a bit.
>> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> I also find the ASR9001 a lot slower than the ASR1000 (RP2). But it's not as 
> bad as the PPC-based MX's.

My preferred supplier just called in telling me that ASR 9001 are way more 
expensive
currently than, say, ASR 1002 with RP2. I'll get a quote later today.

ASR 9006 OTOH are rather cheap for their capabilities he claims - but definitely
too big for the current project. Possibly for the new data centre ...

So, any remarks about the 1002?

Thanks,
Patrick


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Aug/17 11:58, Gert Doering wrote:

> This is what we currently do for "BGP edge", and I totally love the 
> box.  Even though software updates are as annoying, mostly because the
> flash disk is so slw so the fairly complex processes take ages,
> and then a bit.

Indeed.

I also find the ASR9001 a lot slower than the ASR1000 (RP2). But it's
not as bad as the PPC-based MX's.

To the OP, there is the ASR9001-S, which is just a license-restricted
ASR9001-S. A lot like the MX5, MX10 and MX40 versions of the MX80.


> Yep.  4M routes.
>
> On the Cisco side, I think there's currently nothing better.
>
> On the J side, someone will mention MX240 - which would be a good choice
> as well (do not go for MX80 or MX104).

Yes, stay away from the MX80 and MX104. We have decommissioned all our
MX80's from production and into the lab, since they have run out of
memory to be useful for today's Internet. The MX104's are just as slow
as their MX80 cousins, so we have put a halt to them and are focusing on
the MX480 as the base chassis for our small edge PoP's, going forward.

Juniper are working on a new MX unit, Intel-based, as an upgrade to the
MX104. So anyone who was holding out for a sane RE on the MX104 can
start breathing now.

Mark.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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/

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:54:13AM +0200, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> ASR 9001 looks like a candidate, 4x 10GE and one
> 20x 1GE line card are definitely sufficient for the
> foreseeable future.

This is what we currently do for "BGP edge", and I totally love the 
box.  Even though software updates are as annoying, mostly because the
flash disk is so slw so the fairly complex processes take ages,
and then a bit.

> Are there any licensing pitfalls I need to be aware of with
> refurbished hardware and IOS-XR? Can anybody share
> experience with the "cluster" license and feature for these
> switches?

We did not look at clustering, just the basic IOS XR with MPLS support
(and no VRF license).

L3 VPNs are hellishly expensive, so we don't do that on the ASR9ks.

> According to our supplier they feature 8 GB of memory
> and "a couple of millions of routes (v4 and v6)" - correct?

Yep.  4M routes.

On the Cisco side, I think there's currently nothing better.

On the J side, someone will mention MX240 - which would be a good choice
as well (do not go for MX80 or MX104).

gert

-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
   //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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/

[c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Patrick M. Hausen]

Hi all,

seems like I'll finally have to bite the bullet and move
BGP routing off of our Catalyst 6500. For the moment
we plan a gradual migration by connecting a pair of
as-small-as-sufficient routers, not switches, to the
existing infrastructure to run BGP to our transit providers
and leave the layer2 network in place for now.

Estimate is that the C6500 will be capable of running
layer 2 plus IGP (OSPF in our case) for another year
or so. We plan to move to a new data centre in that
time frame, so we can build everything from scratch
at the new location. For this time frame I need reliable
BGP routing at the old location with a modest investment.

ASR 9001 looks like a candidate, 4x 10GE and one
20x 1GE line card are definitely sufficient for the
foreseeable future.

Are there any licensing pitfalls I need to be aware of with
refurbished hardware and IOS-XR? Can anybody share
experience with the "cluster" license and feature for these
switches?

According to our supplier they feature 8 GB of memory
and "a couple of millions of routes (v4 and v6)" - correct?


Is there a viable alternative in the ASR 1k line of products?
2 rack units and low power consumption preferred.
And availability in the secondary market, of course ...


Any completely different product I overlooked?


Thanks in advance for your input.
Patrick



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
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/