Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X
I will not claim to be a expert on this platform. But, from the CCW it looks like some cards can only be placed in slot 1-3 and others in 4-6. So port density gets harder to calculate. Also, older cards are not compatible with the new RSP. At least they can not be ordered in chassis this way. It seems a little early for this platform to be deeming things incompatible. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: Mattias Gyllenvarg Sent: 23 April 2015 08:56 Regarding what replaces the ME3800 Was looking around the Cisco labyrinth and saw that the big RSP for the ASR 903 has 144Mb buffers and relatively interesting possibilities regarding interfaces. Assuming feature parity this would be a nice upgrade. Not to bad price, but some wierd limitation on card positions. Yeah the big RSP looks good, but it exists only for RSP1 which has only 10Gbps per slot. What do you mean by the card position limitations please? adam -- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com -- -- *Med Vänliga Hälsningar / Best Regards* *Mattias Gyllenvarg* ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Regarding what replaces the ME3800 Was looking around the Cisco labyrinth and saw that the big RSP for the ASR 903 has 144Mb buffers and relatively interesting possibilities regarding interfaces. Assuming feature parity this would be a nice upgrade. Not to bad price, but some wierd limitation on card positions. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:16 PM, CiscoNSP List cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com wrote: I've just resigned to the fact that there are some thing which will never make it to the ME3600X/3800X, for reasons unknown. On the back of the ASR920, I doubt much effort is going to be expended on the ME3600X/3800X any longer. We'd all do well to start deploying ASR920 in the coming few years. Hi Mark - Given Cisco's push(Well recommendation) on the ASR920 vs ME3600...have you heard any rumours on a new ASR900 that will be replacing the ME3800? The buffer space disparity(ASR920 v ME3600) still really confuses me...why would Cisco do this? If they increase the number of supported VPLS/PW/QOS etc instances on the ASR920, and recommend it as a replacement to the ME3600, why would they reduce the buffer on the ASR920(And significantly so)? I really want to get my hands on one and test the buffers out...see if there are drops v's ME3600.. Cheers for all the imput...it's been extremely valuable. ___ 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/ -- *Med Vänliga Hälsningar / Best Regards* *Mattias Gyllenvarg* ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 23/Apr/15 09:56, Mattias Gyllenvarg wrote: Regarding what replaces the ME3800 Was looking around the Cisco labyrinth and saw that the big RSP for the ASR 903 has 144Mb buffers and relatively interesting possibilities regarding interfaces. Assuming feature parity this would be a nice upgrade. Not to bad price, but some wierd limitation on card positions. Scale-wise, the ME3800X is bigger than the ME3600X and ASR920. Not sure if an RSP upgrade to the ASR903 would create a viable upgrade path for the ME3800X. Maybe Cisco are working on a version of the ASR920 that can replace the ME3800X, given more of the software development and improvements in hardware will be on the ASR920 anyway. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Mattias Gyllenvarg Sent: 23 April 2015 08:56 Regarding what replaces the ME3800 Was looking around the Cisco labyrinth and saw that the big RSP for the ASR 903 has 144Mb buffers and relatively interesting possibilities regarding interfaces. Assuming feature parity this would be a nice upgrade. Not to bad price, but some wierd limitation on card positions. Yeah the big RSP looks good, but it exists only for RSP1 which has only 10Gbps per slot. What do you mean by the card position limitations please? adam --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
I've just resigned to the fact that there are some thing which will never make it to the ME3600X/3800X, for reasons unknown. On the back of the ASR920, I doubt much effort is going to be expended on the ME3600X/3800X any longer. We'd all do well to start deploying ASR920 in the coming few years. Hi Mark - Given Cisco's push(Well recommendation) on the ASR920 vs ME3600...have you heard any rumours on a new ASR900 that will be replacing the ME3800? The buffer space disparity(ASR920 v ME3600) still really confuses me...why would Cisco do this? If they increase the number of supported VPLS/PW/QOS etc instances on the ASR920, and recommend it as a replacement to the ME3600, why would they reduce the buffer on the ASR920(And significantly so)? I really want to get my hands on one and test the buffers out...see if there are drops v's ME3600.. Cheers for all the imput...it's been extremely valuable. ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 25 March 2015 at 22:49, CiscoNSP List cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com wrote: On 3/24/2015 3:06 PM, James Bensley wrote: Its 12MBs shared. James. Pardon my ignorance once again, but is this showstopper bad? The me3800x appears to have 352MB, so clearly a lot more, but IIRC older switches like the 3560 had something like 2MB per ASIC. I'm assuming one of the main reasons for buffers on a unit like this is the speed disparity between 10ge and 1ge ports, unless you're planning to do a lot of shaping (rather than policing) - is this correct? Significant difference to the ME3600 (Which is 44Mb?) - Would like some real-world feedback from anyones thats used these(ASR920s)any issues with micro-bursts/drops?(You would have to assume yes?) 12Mbps could be a bugger if you are doing any decent amount of shaping and oversubscription... We don't have the ASR920's in production yet they're still in the lab. Where I am at though is that the ME3600/ME3800s wouldn't allow us to over subscribe the shapers on a port. I raised it on this list and with Cisco, after some investigation from them (they were very helpful btw!) it seems that its a limitation of the code running on ME3600/ME3800s and there is no interest on Cisco's part to to change that. On the ASR920 this seems to be fixed in that it will actually let me enter the confguration to over subscribe port shapers where as the ME's would kick back and error and reject the config, although I haven't tested it yet. For clarity an example would be taht we have a 1Gbps port on the ME3600, connected to a carrier NNI. We have 10 customer circuits coming in on different VLANs through this NNI. Each one is shaped to 100Mbps for example. When we add an 11th circuit to the carrier NNI on an 11th VLAN we add an 11th class map to the NNI port policy-map to match the new service instance to shape it to 100Mbps to then nest a QoS policy under that. The ME's would kick back an error not lettings us configure 11x 100Mbps shapers on the 1G port. The ASR920 is letting me configured it. The proof will be in the pudding! 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
-Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka On 26/Mar/15 17:04, Eric Van Tol wrote: I did quite a bit of testing in our lab prior to deployment, mainly to see if there was feature parity with the ME3600. Configuration and feature- wise, they were nearly identical, at least with regard to what we provide or plan to provide. It did take me some time to figure out how to get an SVI onto it, as I've never worked with IOS-XE and the documentation for the ASR920 is/was just terrible/incomplete. Is it different from SVI's on the ME3600X/3800X? Only in the sense that an SVI on the ASR920 is a BDI. Of course, ports can have IP addresses applied directly to them, but in order to perform switching or VLAN trunking, service instances and BDIs are required: interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0 mtu 9216 no ip address load-interval 30 negotiation auto service instance 8 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 8 rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric bridge-domain 8 ! service instance 600 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 600 rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric bridge-domain 600 ! ! interface BDI600 ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252 ip verify unicast reverse-path end And yes, it looks like uRPF works. :-) -evt ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
-Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of CiscoNSP List Significant difference to the ME3600 (Which is 44Mb?) - Would like some real-world feedback from anyones thats used these(ASR920s)any issues with micro-bursts/drops?(You would have to assume yes?) We currently have two ASR920s in the field and have not seen any drops (yet). One is a stub node on a lit VPLS hub from a transport provider and one is participating in a metro ring with a 1G backbone, each with a few operational customer ports on them. We're using the 12xGE-2x10GE-FIXED ASRs at the moment, but are looking at other models for different types of deployments. I did quite a bit of testing in our lab prior to deployment, mainly to see if there was feature parity with the ME3600. Configuration and feature-wise, they were nearly identical, at least with regard to what we provide or plan to provide. It did take me some time to figure out how to get an SVI onto it, as I've never worked with IOS-XE and the documentation for the ASR920 is/was just terrible/incomplete. The price can't be beat as a low-cost ME 'switch'. They won't work for everyone, but we're satisfied *so far*, but our deployments are not as high capacity as others on this list. Someone else had mentioned the Juniper ACX5048. I drooled over that when I first saw it, but then I noticed the environmental limitations - 32° to 104° F. That would work well in most colo or CO deployments, but most of our deployments are within telephone closets with little to no airflow or AC. I suppose I understand why the operating temp is so low, just a bit disappointed. -evt ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 26/Mar/15 17:04, Eric Van Tol wrote: I did quite a bit of testing in our lab prior to deployment, mainly to see if there was feature parity with the ME3600. Configuration and feature-wise, they were nearly identical, at least with regard to what we provide or plan to provide. It did take me some time to figure out how to get an SVI onto it, as I've never worked with IOS-XE and the documentation for the ASR920 is/was just terrible/incomplete. Is it different from SVI's on the ME3600X/3800X? Someone else had mentioned the Juniper ACX5048. I drooled over that when I first saw it, but then I noticed the environmental limitations - 32° to 104° F. That would work well in most colo or CO deployments, but most of our deployments are within telephone closets with little to no airflow or AC. I suppose I understand why the operating temp is so low, just a bit disappointed. I'll forward this feedback to Juniper. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 26/Mar/15 17:41, Eric Van Tol wrote: Only in the sense that an SVI on the ASR920 is a BDI. I can live with that :-). The concept is still the same, just that SVI's are replaced with BDI's. I can imagine how hard it would have been to find this out on the back of poor documentation. Of course, ports can have IP addresses applied directly to them, Nice to still have that. Good for simple implementations where only an IP service is sold directly off the port, negating the need for EVC's. but in order to perform switching or VLAN trunking, service instances and BDIs are required: interface GigabitEthernet0/0/0 mtu 9216 no ip address load-interval 30 negotiation auto service instance 8 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 8 rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric bridge-domain 8 ! service instance 600 ethernet encapsulation dot1q 600 rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric bridge-domain 600 ! ! interface BDI600 ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.252 ip verify unicast reverse-path end That's good. And yes, it looks like uRPF works. :-) Finally! I've just resigned to the fact that there are some thing which will never make it to the ME3600X/3800X, for reasons unknown. On the back of the ASR920, I doubt much effort is going to be expended on the ME3600X/3800X any longer. We'd all do well to start deploying ASR920 in the coming few years. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 3/24/2015 3:06 PM, James Bensley wrote: Its 12MBs shared. James. Pardon my ignorance once again, but is this showstopper bad? The me3800x appears to have 352MB, so clearly a lot more, but IIRC older switches like the 3560 had something like 2MB per ASIC. I'm assuming one of the main reasons for buffers on a unit like this is the speed disparity between 10ge and 1ge ports, unless you're planning to do a lot of shaping (rather than policing) - is this correct? Significant difference to the ME3600 (Which is 44Mb?) - Would like some real-world feedback from anyones thats used these(ASR920s)any issues with micro-bursts/drops?(You would have to assume yes?) Cheers. ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
I'm assuming one of the main reasons for buffers on a unit like this is the speed disparity between 10ge and 1ge ports, unless you're planning to do a lot of shaping (rather than policing) - is this correct? Not sure if I understood what you meant exactly, but speed mismatch and shaping both leads to output queuing in the end, the only difference being that a speed mismatch is a hard physical limit, while shaping is a artificial limit. In other words both a speed mismatch and a shaper needs buffers. On the other hand, a policer doesn't need any buffers/queues (because it doesn't queue packets). Whether a specific buffer sizeis enough depends on the services you want to provide, therefor the answer is it depends. ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 3/24/2015 3:06 PM, James Bensley wrote: Its 12MBs shared. James. Pardon my ignorance once again, but is this showstopper bad? The me3800x appears to have 352MB, so clearly a lot more, but IIRC older switches like the 3560 had something like 2MB per ASIC. I'm assuming one of the main reasons for buffers on a unit like this is the speed disparity between 10ge and 1ge ports, unless you're planning to do a lot of shaping (rather than policing) - is this correct? 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Except for the T1/E1 cards the IM model will get you into realm of the oversubscribed, so for us it is a no go. +1 Mark Ts hornyness for clean MPLS 10Ge Metro-E rings. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk wrote: It would be great if Waris could chime in to shed some light on what are the plans with ME platform. Have you folks quoted the low density models or the high density models (ASR-920-24SZ-M/ASR-920-24SZ-IM) please? As I can see how the low density models can be dirty cheap as they remind me of the ASR901. So the ASR-920-24SZ-M 1RU fixed unit has 24GE and 4x10GE. And the ASR-920-24SZ-IM 1.5RU modular unit has the expansion slot where one can put single xfp card or 2 port xfp/sfp+ card or T1/E1 card. But since the switching capacity of the box is 64Gbps I don't see how the expansion slot would bring me any benefit. Looks like a nice replacement for ME3600X-CX -i.e. reduction to 1RU + 16 more GE ports. Let's just hope folks got the HW programing right this time around. adam -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of CiscoNSP List Sent: 24 March 2015 03:54 To: mark.ti...@seacom.mu; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X Ok - This really sparked my interest, as I have some POP's I need to get some ME's forspoke to our Cisco AM, got pricing(No haggling yet) on 3 options ME3600 ME3800 ASR920 ME3600+3800 came back nearly identical pricing...actually ME3800 was cheaper! (With 10Gb ports enabled on ME3600)...so I would go ME3800 every day of the week based of thisbut, the ASR920 was 1/4 of the price of the ME's, and Cisco even recommended I go with them vs the ME's?? Im really not following what Cisco are doing here? Are they not wanting to sell ME's anymore? Based on what I have received so far, it will be ASR920 purchases for certainassuming of course, feature parity, stability etc is the same as the ME3600's we have. Would really like other people thoughts on the ASR920, and why Cisco are now anti-ME (Well they certainly arent making them an attractive option v's the ASR920) ?? Cheers. Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X To: cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net From: mark.ti...@seacom.mu Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:11:55 +0200 On 23/Mar/15 23:59, CiscoNSP List wrote: Thanks Mark - but Im still confused by this...why would Cisco release an upgrade to the ME3600/ME3800 that is far cheaper? Devils always in the detail, so what is the ASR920 missing vs the ME3800? I'm going to get a few to test, but from what I can initially see, nothing besides software parity. Others who have deployed ASR920's can provide their feedback. 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/ --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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/ -- *Med Vänliga Hälsningar / Best Regards* *Mattias Gyllenvarg* ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] Sent: 24 March 2015 11:02 One option is to have multi-level IS-IS (which I don't like, but...) and leak specifically between levels, if FIB slots are an issue with the 4-port. But I won't decide on a design until I get my hands on the thing. I would not go down that road, remember the discussion we had some time ago where the consensus was that single level/area is soo much better simpler and features friendly compared to hierarchical models. And anyways the main FIB consumer are the customer VPN prefixes. We terminate customers directly to the Metro-E boxes (ME3600X today). This is why a denser 48-port ASR920 is useful for us. We try to limit the need for boxes as much as possible, as I'm sure everybody else on this list does. Agreed, less costs and less things to break. The next phase is to build cheaper sub-rings (the 2nd level I was talking about) which would ordinarily be done by Layer 2 boxes. So if the 4-port ASR920 can maintain the IP/MPLS-based Metro-E network deeper into a layered ring, happy days. Well you could build the L2 rings as 10GE -so you'd have 2x10GE cust-agg in and 2x10GE out to MPLS. And yes I know the PBB-EVPN support will possibly be non-existent on MX - so it should not classify as proper Carrier Ethernet box :) . If you can get Juniper to commit to your feature requirements, it'll make it into the ACX. I haven't spent anytime on EVPN, to be honest. If I understood our product guy well the statement from Juniper was that there are no slightest plans for PBB-EVPN. Which was a true wtf moment for me as one would think they'd like the box to be a competition for ASR9k. adam --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] Sent: 24 March 2015 11:56 Agree, but remember every node you add into the IGP creates state; and you want to run pw's all over the place, that states need to be held in FIB. I wouldn't say l3vpn prefixes are the majority in most MPLS networks, as some MPLS networks focus on l2vpn's (Martini, not BGP), which would mean less l3vpn BGP state to be held. So this one depends. Fair point I agree but hierarchy is not the way to go. We should not be forced into troublesome topologies just because FIB space worth of 20k prefixes is considered to be enough for the access layer. I don't like Route Leaking, but if the 4-port ASR920 does not have enough FIB to hold my entire IGP table + some l3vpn BGP routes, it's a non-starter. I'm not in the mood to run pw's to an intelligent box in the core to instantiate services from there. Might as well run a Layer 2 network :-). What we did is we end up stacking boxes into locations that required more FIB space. The main problem with a Layer 2 ring is protection. Easier if the ring is terminating on the same upstream node (but still a b**ch), way harder if the ring is terminating on different upstream nodes (a real b**ch, but what sales droids push to customers). Any way you cut it, Layer 2 access points that are not point-to-point with their upstream nodes in nature are a real PITA to operate. Yeah hence the move to push IP as far as possible and possibly take MPLS along with it. I'm giving EVPN two more years (like SDN) to settle down before we can separate the wheat from the chaff. Too much handwaving at this time, especially if you run a multi-vendor network. To be honest, I'm not unhappy with Martini l2vpn pw's. Mark. I'm looking forward for the PBB element from the scaling perspective as I don’t want to be carrying bare MAC addresses in RIB/FIB (have enough problems with VPN prefixes). And also multicast distribution is much better with mLDP compared to full mesh of PW so I don't need to try to sell a hybrid two services solution for L2VPN+Multicast(via L3VPN). Don't even get me started with SDN :) To me it's just a woo woo, sorry about the advert but to me it's exactly like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr_EtMhM3fg Until they have ASICs capable of doing routing/traffic engineering based on application requests in real time for millions of flows at multiple 10Gbps rates it's all just a nice dream. adam --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 24/Mar/15 16:17, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Fair point I agree but hierarchy is not the way to go. We should not be forced into troublesome topologies just because FIB space worth of 20k prefixes is considered to be enough for the access layer. I can't argue with you there; I'm just thinking of all possible options. I've already told myself Route Leaking is a no-no, but it's still an option - the one that comes after Option Z. Of course, vendors will tell you to run pw's to the nearest PE router and instantiate a service there, so I'm not turning to them for any solution other than hardware. I'll have to twist IP into doing what I want :-). What we did is we end up stacking boxes into locations that required more FIB space. Which is why that 96-port switch from Juniper looks so tasty. I suppose one could upgrade a 4-port ASR920 to a 12-port, but only if there are hardware benefits. Crap, more (good) vendors need to play in this space. And also multicast distribution is much better with mLDP compared to full mesh of PW so I don't need to try to sell a hybrid two services solution for L2VPN+Multicast(via L3VPN). Loove mLDP... Don't even get me started with SDN :) To me it's just a woo woo, sorry about the advert but to me it's exactly like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr_EtMhM3fg Until they have ASICs capable of doing routing/traffic engineering based on application requests in real time for millions of flows at multiple 10Gbps rates it's all just a nice dream. Hehe, woo woo - I'm using that... 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 24/Mar/15 12:05, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: It would be great if Waris could chime in to shed some light on what are the plans with ME platform. On the back of a discussion I had a few years ago, it looks like everything Metro-E is switching over to IOS XE. That means the ME3600X/3800X don't have a bright future. Likely due to SDN'y things. Have you folks quoted the low density models or the high density models (ASR-920-24SZ-M/ASR-920-24SZ-IM) please? As I can see how the low density models can be dirty cheap as they remind me of the ASR901. I'm quite horny for the 4-port ASR920. It's a viable option for a 2nd level of rings which would typically be based on Layer 2 switches. Not having to deal with Layer 2 issues in a Metro-E ring is the unending goal in life, so the 4-port ASR920 might just be the deal. However, a lot of that will depend on how much it can hold in FIB, and if there is feature parity with the 12- and 24-port units. So the ASR-920-24SZ-M 1RU fixed unit has 24GE and 4x10GE. This where I need a 48-port version to go with those 4x 10Gbps uplinks. Otherwise, what a waste of some good uplink capacity. And the ASR-920-24SZ-IM 1.5RU modular unit has the expansion slot where one can put single xfp card or 2 port xfp/sfp+ card or T1/E1 card. But since the switching capacity of the box is 64Gbps I don't see how the expansion slot would bring me any benefit. For the Metro-E network, I'm not keen on anything larger than 1U unless it packs a ton of ports. Anyone seen Juniper's ACX5096 box: http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/acx-series/acx5000/ Now that's 96x customer-facing, multi-rate (1Gbps/10Gbps) ports, for the Metro-E network. I'm salivating over this box, but can't get it yet because it has some fundamental things that need to be fixed. Then I'm all over it (including it's little brother, the ACX5048). 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] Sent: 24 March 2015 10:23 On 24/Mar/15 12:05, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: I'm quite horny for the 4-port ASR920. It's a viable option for a 2nd level of rings which would typically be based on Layer 2 switches. Not having to deal with Layer 2 issues in a Metro-E ring is the unending goal in life, so the 4-port ASR920 might just be the deal. However, a lot of that will depend on how much it can hold in FIB, and if there is feature parity with the 12- and 24-port units. Yeah well the FIB prognoses doesn’t look good at the moment and I don't see folks jumping from 20K to 128K. So the ASR-920-24SZ-M 1RU fixed unit has 24GE and 4x10GE. This where I need a 48-port version to go with those 4x 10Gbps uplinks. Otherwise, what a waste of some good uplink capacity. We used customer aggregation switches to hang of the 10GE ports and hooked up the box to the rest of the network. And we would need to do that with these boxes anyways as there are more then 24/48 customers at each of these locations (we used our own infrastructure to aggregate the end customers). Or you could use the two 10GE ports as E-NNI to your local EthAgg provider -so no need for additional equipment. Anyone seen Juniper's ACX5096 box: http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/acx- series/acx5000/ Now that's 96x customer-facing, multi-rate (1Gbps/10Gbps) ports, for the Metro-E network. I'm salivating over this box, but can't get it yet because it has some fundamental things that need to be fixed. Then I'm all over it (including it's little brother, the ACX5048). Mark. Wow this guy looks fierce, now that is some proper Carrier Ethernet Agg device in terms of rough power (though with Juniper one has to deduct 1/3 to get the real front to back performance). But will it have the same Carrier Ethernet features as let's say MX boxes? And yes I know the PBB-EVPN support will possibly be non-existent on MX -so it should not classify as proper Carrier Ethernet box :) . adam --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
It would be great if Waris could chime in to shed some light on what are the plans with ME platform. Have you folks quoted the low density models or the high density models (ASR-920-24SZ-M/ASR-920-24SZ-IM) please? As I can see how the low density models can be dirty cheap as they remind me of the ASR901. So the ASR-920-24SZ-M 1RU fixed unit has 24GE and 4x10GE. And the ASR-920-24SZ-IM 1.5RU modular unit has the expansion slot where one can put single xfp card or 2 port xfp/sfp+ card or T1/E1 card. But since the switching capacity of the box is 64Gbps I don't see how the expansion slot would bring me any benefit. Looks like a nice replacement for ME3600X-CX -i.e. reduction to 1RU + 16 more GE ports. Let's just hope folks got the HW programing right this time around. adam -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of CiscoNSP List Sent: 24 March 2015 03:54 To: mark.ti...@seacom.mu; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X Ok - This really sparked my interest, as I have some POP's I need to get some ME's forspoke to our Cisco AM, got pricing(No haggling yet) on 3 options ME3600 ME3800 ASR920 ME3600+3800 came back nearly identical pricing...actually ME3800 was cheaper! (With 10Gb ports enabled on ME3600)...so I would go ME3800 every day of the week based of thisbut, the ASR920 was 1/4 of the price of the ME's, and Cisco even recommended I go with them vs the ME's?? Im really not following what Cisco are doing here? Are they not wanting to sell ME's anymore? Based on what I have received so far, it will be ASR920 purchases for certainassuming of course, feature parity, stability etc is the same as the ME3600's we have. Would really like other people thoughts on the ASR920, and why Cisco are now anti-ME (Well they certainly arent making them an attractive option v's the ASR920) ?? Cheers. Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X To: cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net From: mark.ti...@seacom.mu Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:11:55 +0200 On 23/Mar/15 23:59, CiscoNSP List wrote: Thanks Mark - but Im still confused by this...why would Cisco release an upgrade to the ME3600/ME3800 that is far cheaper? Devils always in the detail, so what is the ASR920 missing vs the ME3800? I'm going to get a few to test, but from what I can initially see, nothing besides software parity. Others who have deployed ASR920's can provide their feedback. 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/ --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 24/Mar/15 12:55, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Yeah well the FIB prognoses doesn’t look good at the moment and I don't see folks jumping from 20K to 128K. One option is to have multi-level IS-IS (which I don't like, but...) and leak specifically between levels, if FIB slots are an issue with the 4-port. But I won't decide on a design until I get my hands on the thing. We used customer aggregation switches to hang of the 10GE ports and hooked up the box to the rest of the network. And we would need to do that with these boxes anyways as there are more then 24/48 customers at each of these locations (we used our own infrastructure to aggregate the end customers). Or you could use the two 10GE ports as E-NNI to your local EthAgg provider -so no need for additional equipment. We terminate customers directly to the Metro-E boxes (ME3600X today). This is why a denser 48-port ASR920 is useful for us. We try to limit the need for boxes as much as possible, as I'm sure everybody else on this list does. The next phase is to build cheaper sub-rings (the 2nd level I was talking about) which would ordinarily be done by Layer 2 boxes. So if the 4-port ASR920 can maintain the IP/MPLS-based Metro-E network deeper into a layered ring, happy days. Wow this guy looks fierce, now that is some proper Carrier Ethernet Agg device in terms of rough power (though with Juniper one has to deduct 1/3 to get the real front to back performance). But will it have the same Carrier Ethernet features as let's say MX boxes? It will be a proper Juniper router. So whatever you get on the MX will appear there too. The only issue will be if the hardware will support those features. This is one of the reasons I'm delaying buying it. And yes I know the PBB-EVPN support will possibly be non-existent on MX -so it should not classify as proper Carrier Ethernet box :) . If you can get Juniper to commit to your feature requirements, it'll make it into the ACX. I haven't spent anytime on EVPN, to be honest. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 24/Mar/15 13:44, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: I would not go down that road, remember the discussion we had some time ago where the consensus was that single level/area is soo much better simpler and features friendly compared to hierarchical models. And anyways the main FIB consumer are the customer VPN prefixes. Agree, but remember every node you add into the IGP creates state; and you want to run pw's all over the place, that states need to be held in FIB. I wouldn't say l3vpn prefixes are the majority in most MPLS networks, as some MPLS networks focus on l2vpn's (Martini, not BGP), which would mean less l3vpn BGP state to be held. So this one depends. I don't like Route Leaking, but if the 4-port ASR920 does not have enough FIB to hold my entire IGP table + some l3vpn BGP routes, it's a non-starter. I'm not in the mood to run pw's to an intelligent box in the core to instantiate services from there. Might as well run a Layer 2 network :-). Well you could build the L2 rings as 10GE -so you'd have 2x10GE cust-agg in and 2x10GE out to MPLS. The main problem with a Layer 2 ring is protection. Easier if the ring is terminating on the same upstream node (but still a b**ch), way harder if the ring is terminating on different upstream nodes (a real b**ch, but what sales droids push to customers). Any way you cut it, Layer 2 access points that are not point-to-point with their upstream nodes in nature are a real PITA to operate. If I understood our product guy well the statement from Juniper was that there are no slightest plans for PBB-EVPN. Which was a true wtf moment for me as one would think they'd like the box to be a competition for ASR9k. Well that's terrible. I'm giving EVPN two more years (like SDN) to settle down before we can separate the wheat from the chaff. Too much handwaving at this time, especially if you run a multi-vendor network. To be honest, I'm not unhappy with Martini l2vpn pw's. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 24 March 2015 at 08:23, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On 24/Mar/15 10:01, Gert Doering wrote: Well, I can only guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if actually *making* the MEs is way more expensive (due to 3rd party chipsets being used) than the ASR920s (Cisco's own new and shiny ASIC)... I could be mis-remembering, but I think the ME3600X/3800X ASIC is an in-house unit (Nile, if memory serves). It was the ME2600X which was based on a Broadcom chipset. Suffice it to say, that box was promptly discontinued and replaced with the ASR920. I think that it is the 2nd generation of the Nile ASIC, its called the Cylon ASIC. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Cheers. Someone also mentioned that the ASR920 had smaller buffers than the ME3600anyone got the actual numbers(Or links...Ive googled(Ive also asked our AM)), but can only find references stating deep buffers on the ASR920 http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/datasheet-c78-732079.html Cheers Its 12MBs shared. 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/ ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 03/23/2015 09:53 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote: Would really like other people thoughts on the ASR920, and why Cisco are now anti-ME (Well they certainly arent making them an attractive option v's the ASR920) ?? Cheers. I got this link back from the folks who quoted the asr920 for me. Looks like Gert was correct - the pay as you grow model is in full effect. I was expecting to have to turn on 10ge ports, but I'm surprised that in many cases you have to grow into your 1ge ports as well. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr920/configuration/guide/csa/b_port_licensing_asr920.html Still, what we've been given for pricing, assuming the pay as you grow doesn't double the cost, is very attractive for customer facing edge gear. The project scope hasn't been defined, and may never be, but assuming we're just looking at l2/l3vpn and non-BGP DIA I'm going to give these serious consideration. Thanks for all of the info folks! 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
What are we hoping for / expecting from Cisco here? I would like to see an ASR920 with extendend bufferspace to replace the ME3600X. Mostly because the formfactor is superior. Also, I am missing an 8xTe version of the ASR900. Generally, I am pretty happy about the ASR900 line so far. It lacks software maturity, but that is in the nature of new things. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On 24/Mar/15 10:37, Mattias Gyllenvarg wrote: I have no machine in production yet so this is speculation. But the ASR920 has less bufferspace then the ME3600x, this may be handled by design if you utilize the extra Te interfaces in a clever way. Thought it makes it hard to make a case for the ASR920 to replace the ME3800x, Unless cisco invents a license for more bufferspace. I think that the ME3800X will be sneaking into the ASR9000 realm. The ASR920 only replaces the ME3600X, as they are of reasonably similar scale. The ME3800X still scales better than the ASR920, so it's not being replaced by this unit for the time being. Mark. -- *Med Vänliga Hälsningar / Best Regards* *Mattias Gyllenvarg* ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
I have no machine in production yet so this is speculation. But the ASR920 has less bufferspace then the ME3600x, this may be handled by design if you utilize the extra Te interfaces in a clever way. Thought it makes it hard to make a case for the ASR920 to replace the ME3800x, Unless cisco invents a license for more bufferspace. I think that the ME3800X will be sneaking into the ASR9000 realm. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On 24/Mar/15 10:01, Gert Doering wrote: Well, I can only guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if actually *making* the MEs is way more expensive (due to 3rd party chipsets being used) than the ASR920s (Cisco's own new and shiny ASIC)... I could be mis-remembering, but I think the ME3600X/3800X ASIC is an in-house unit (Nile, if memory serves). It was the ME2600X which was based on a Broadcom chipset. Suffice it to say, that box was promptly discontinued and replaced with the ASR920. 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/ -- *Med Vänliga Hälsningar / Best Regards* *Mattias Gyllenvarg* ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 24/Mar/15 10:37, Mattias Gyllenvarg wrote: I have no machine in production yet so this is speculation. But the ASR920 has less bufferspace then the ME3600x, this may be handled by design if you utilize the extra Te interfaces in a clever way. Thought it makes it hard to make a case for the ASR920 to replace the ME3800x, Unless cisco invents a license for more bufferspace. I think that the ME3800X will be sneaking into the ASR9000 realm. The ASR920 only replaces the ME3600X, as they are of reasonably similar scale. The ME3800X still scales better than the ASR920, so it's not being replaced by this unit for the time being. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
I have from my AMs CCIE that the chassie has a 12Mb shared buffer. I am also pleased with the pricing, at least for MPLS purposes. Less pleased with the SEK-USD exchange rate... On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:01 PM, CiscoNSP List cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com wrote: I got this link back from the folks who quoted the asr920 for me. Looks like Gert was correct - the pay as you grow model is in full effect. I was expecting to have to turn on 10ge ports, but I'm surprised that in many cases you have to grow into your 1ge ports as well. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr920/configuration/guide/csa/b_port_licensing_asr920.html Still, what we've been given for pricing, assuming the pay as you grow doesn't double the cost, is very attractive for customer facing edge gear. The project scope hasn't been defined, and may never be, but assuming we're just looking at l2/l3vpn and non-BGP DIA I'm going to give these serious consideration. Thanks for all of the info folks! Quote I got on the ASR-920-24SZ-M, upgrade license to go from 12 x 1Gb - 24 x 1Gb was negligible (i.e ~15%)...again, no haggling. Someone also mentioned that the ASR920 had smaller buffers than the ME3600anyone got the actual numbers(Or links...Ive googled(Ive also asked our AM)), but can only find references stating deep buffers on the ASR920 http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/datasheet-c78-732079.html Cheers ___ 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/ -- *Med Vänliga Hälsningar / Best Regards* *Mattias Gyllenvarg* ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
I got this link back from the folks who quoted the asr920 for me. Looks like Gert was correct - the pay as you grow model is in full effect. I was expecting to have to turn on 10ge ports, but I'm surprised that in many cases you have to grow into your 1ge ports as well. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr920/configuration/guide/csa/b_port_licensing_asr920.html Still, what we've been given for pricing, assuming the pay as you grow doesn't double the cost, is very attractive for customer facing edge gear. The project scope hasn't been defined, and may never be, but assuming we're just looking at l2/l3vpn and non-BGP DIA I'm going to give these serious consideration. Thanks for all of the info folks! Quote I got on the ASR-920-24SZ-M, upgrade license to go from 12 x 1Gb - 24 x 1Gb was negligible (i.e ~15%)...again, no haggling. Someone also mentioned that the ASR920 had smaller buffers than the ME3600anyone got the actual numbers(Or links...Ive googled(Ive also asked our AM)), but can only find references stating deep buffers on the ASR920 http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/datasheet-c78-732079.html Cheers ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Hi, On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:53:55PM +1100, CiscoNSP List wrote: Im really not following what Cisco are doing here? Are they not wanting to sell ME's anymore? Well, I can only guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if actually *making* the MEs is way more expensive (due to 3rd party chipsets being used) than the ASR920s (Cisco's own new and shiny ASIC)... 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 pgpiekIlYGckU.pgp 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 24/Mar/15 10:01, Gert Doering wrote: Well, I can only guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if actually *making* the MEs is way more expensive (due to 3rd party chipsets being used) than the ASR920s (Cisco's own new and shiny ASIC)... I could be mis-remembering, but I think the ME3600X/3800X ASIC is an in-house unit (Nile, if memory serves). It was the ME2600X which was based on a Broadcom chipset. Suffice it to say, that box was promptly discontinued and replaced with the ASR920. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 24 March 2015 at 18:01, CiscoNSP List cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com wrote: I got this link back from the folks who quoted the asr920 for me. Looks like Gert was correct - the pay as you grow model is in full effect. I was expecting to have to turn on 10ge ports, but I'm surprised that in many cases you have to grow into your 1ge ports as well. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr920/configuration/guide/csa/b_port_licensing_asr920.html Still, what we've been given for pricing, assuming the pay as you grow doesn't double the cost, is very attractive for customer facing edge gear. The project scope hasn't been defined, and may never be, but assuming we're just looking at l2/l3vpn and non-BGP DIA I'm going to give these serious consideration. Thanks for all of the info folks! Quote I got on the ASR-920-24SZ-M, upgrade license to go from 12 x 1Gb - 24 x 1Gb was negligible (i.e ~15%)...again, no haggling. Someone also mentioned that the ASR920 had smaller buffers than the ME3600anyone got the actual numbers(Or links...Ive googled(Ive also asked our AM)), but can only find references stating deep buffers on the ASR920 http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/datasheet-c78-732079.html Cheers Its 12MBs shared. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Hi, On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 01:22:59PM -0600, Tim Densmore wrote: how it's the upgrade path from an me3800x? I can see that they have similar stats in some areas, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of a router being the next step up from a switch, especially given that we're looking at a quote that's around 4x less than what we have for 3800s. When comparing prices, don't overlook the licenses - from what I could find, the 920 is pay-as-you-grow, so you need an extra license to use all ports. 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 pgpWKp1zCOMjF.pgp 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 3/23/2015 3:27 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote: Yes, which I was stunned by as well - sub $10k for the asr, and $30k+ for the 3800, though that quote was several months old. I take it that I should probably verify what I was quoted wasn't just a PSU or something... Umm - Im stunned as well?...Mark/Anyone else...can you please confirm if this is correct? I just fired off a clarification request. I probably asked for the wrong part number or something like that - ASR-920-24SZ-M. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 3/18/2015 1:49 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: On 18/Mar/15 09:37, CiscoNSP List wrote: Hi Guys, Looking at both of these boxes to terminate 10Gb Aggs and a bunch of either VRF or VPLS tails...3800X looks to support more VRF's(2000 instances) vs 128 on the ASR902...but we only need a 2 or 3, just a heap of subints/vlan ints in the same vrf, but the 902 looks to be able to give me (With 8x1 Interface module x 4 ) 32 x 1Gb ports and 4 x 10Gb ports...price-wise they look pretty close...am I missing something with the ASR902...as they look like a really nice alternative to the ME3800X.3800X will only give me 24 x 1Gb ports and 2 x 10Gb ports...so would need more of them to accommodate the number of 10G ports I need. The upgrade path for the ME3600X/3800X is the ASR920. I'd consider the ASR920 if you're looking at the long-term. My only disappointment with the ASR920 as of today is that the 4x 10Gbps uplinks do not have 40x or 48x customer-facing ports. Mark. Hi Mark, I'm looking at the asr920s myself - can you give a little more info on how it's the upgrade path from an me3800x? I can see that they have similar stats in some areas, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of a router being the next step up from a switch, especially given that we're looking at a quote that's around 4x less than what we have for 3800s. I'm a product line dunce, though, so any pointers would be appreciated. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 23/Mar/15 21:22, Tim Densmore wrote: Hi Mark, I'm looking at the asr920s myself - can you give a little more info on how it's the upgrade path from an me3800x? I can see that they have similar stats in some areas, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of a router being the next step up from a switch, especially given that we're looking at a quote that's around 4x less than what we have for 3800s. I'm a product line dunce, though, so any pointers would be appreciated. Newer silicon (Cisco Carrier Ethernet ASIC), IOS XE, 4-port, 10-port, 12-port and 24-port versions of the switch, modular line card support, SDN-ready (FWIW), 2x additional 10Gbps uplink ports, e.t.c. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 23/Mar/15 23:59, CiscoNSP List wrote: Thanks Mark - but Im still confused by this...why would Cisco release an upgrade to the ME3600/ME3800 that is far cheaper? Devils always in the detail, so what is the ASR920 missing vs the ME3800? I'm going to get a few to test, but from what I can initially see, nothing besides software parity. Others who have deployed ASR920's can provide their feedback. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 23/Mar/15 23:27, CiscoNSP List wrote: Umm - Im stunned as well?...Mark/Anyone else...can you please confirm if this is correct? How can the upgrade to the ME3800 be cheaper(By 4X !) ?? This doesnt sound like Cisco at all ;) Is it missing some features the ME3800 has? The ASR920 will be cheaper than the ME3600X/3800X. By how much is the usual exercise between you and your AM. But fundamentally, the box will be cheaper. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Yes, which I was stunned by as well - sub $10k for the asr, and $30k+ for the 3800, though that quote was several months old. I take it that I should probably verify what I was quoted wasn't just a PSU or something... Umm - Im stunned as well?...Mark/Anyone else...can you please confirm if this is correct? How can the upgrade to the ME3800 be cheaper(By 4X !) ?? This doesnt sound like Cisco at all ;) Is it missing some features the ME3800 has? Tim Densmore On 3/23/2015 3:10 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote: Hi Tim - Are you saying the ASR920 is 4 times less than an ME3800?? Cheers. Hi Mark, I'm looking at the asr920s myself - can you give a little more info on how it's the upgrade path from an me3800x? I can see that they have similar stats in some areas, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of a router being the next step up from a switch, especially given that we're looking at a quote that's around 4x less than what we have for 3800s. I'm a product line dunce, though, so any pointers would be appreciated. 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/ ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 23/Mar/15 23:27, CiscoNSP List wrote: Umm - Im stunned as well?...Mark/Anyone else...can you please confirm if this is correct? How can the upgrade to the ME3800 be cheaper(By 4X !) ?? This doesnt sound like Cisco at all ;) Is it missing some features the ME3800 has? The ASR920 will be cheaper than the ME3600X/3800X. By how much is the usual exercise between you and your AM. But fundamentally, the box will be cheaper. Thanks Mark - but Im still confused by this...why would Cisco release an upgrade to the ME3600/ME3800 that is far cheaper? Devils always in the detail, so what is the ASR920 missing vs the ME3800? Cheers ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Hi Tim - Are you saying the ASR920 is 4 times less than an ME3800?? Cheers. Hi Mark, I'm looking at the asr920s myself - can you give a little more info on how it's the upgrade path from an me3800x? I can see that they have similar stats in some areas, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of a router being the next step up from a switch, especially given that we're looking at a quote that's around 4x less than what we have for 3800s. I'm a product line dunce, though, so any pointers would be appreciated. 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/ ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Yes, which I was stunned by as well - sub $10k for the asr, and $30k+ for the 3800, though that quote was several months old. I take it that I should probably verify what I was quoted wasn't just a PSU or something... Tim Densmore On 3/23/2015 3:10 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote: Hi Tim - Are you saying the ASR920 is 4 times less than an ME3800?? Cheers. Hi Mark, I'm looking at the asr920s myself - can you give a little more info on how it's the upgrade path from an me3800x? I can see that they have similar stats in some areas, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of a router being the next step up from a switch, especially given that we're looking at a quote that's around 4x less than what we have for 3800s. I'm a product line dunce, though, so any pointers would be appreciated. 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/ ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Ok - This really sparked my interest, as I have some POP's I need to get some ME's forspoke to our Cisco AM, got pricing(No haggling yet) on 3 options ME3600 ME3800 ASR920 ME3600+3800 came back nearly identical pricing...actually ME3800 was cheaper! (With 10Gb ports enabled on ME3600)...so I would go ME3800 every day of the week based of thisbut, the ASR920 was 1/4 of the price of the ME's, and Cisco even recommended I go with them vs the ME's?? Im really not following what Cisco are doing here? Are they not wanting to sell ME's anymore? Based on what I have received so far, it will be ASR920 purchases for certainassuming of course, feature parity, stability etc is the same as the ME3600's we have. Would really like other people thoughts on the ASR920, and why Cisco are now anti-ME (Well they certainly arent making them an attractive option v's the ASR920) ?? Cheers. Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X To: cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net From: mark.ti...@seacom.mu Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:11:55 +0200 On 23/Mar/15 23:59, CiscoNSP List wrote: Thanks Mark - but Im still confused by this...why would Cisco release an upgrade to the ME3600/ME3800 that is far cheaper? Devils always in the detail, so what is the ASR920 missing vs the ME3800? I'm going to get a few to test, but from what I can initially see, nothing besides software parity. Others who have deployed ASR920's can provide their feedback. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 19/Mar/15 10:09, Spyros Kakaroukas wrote: Asr901 is a much different animal than 902/903 or 920. It probably is the worst mpls box ( feature-wise ) that I've ever played with. 902/903 and 920 are completely different in that aspect. Also, IIRC, it does not run XE like the rest. That was a typo on my part. I meant to type ASR902/903. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 19/Mar/15 12:40, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Hi, I see so it's the same as MEs and RSP1/2 -A It's a shame that Cisco decided that 20k is enough and that's it, if you want more go buy ASR9000. But I can sort of see their point cause fully loaded ASR903 is like a mini me version of the big ASR and if it would support 128k prefixes that would be a killer box. I know a vendor pushing product with tons of ports in 1U and 2U form factor switches that can hold 128,000 entries in FIB, reasonably priced. So this is not rocket science. You need those kinds of scales to support MPLS in the Access. One idea I've given a one vendor is license FIB slots. This way, they develop a single version of hardware with a maximum FIB size that does not break the bank, and license access to the FIB on a pay-as-you-grow model, e.g., if you want 5,000 FIB slots, pay this; if you want 100,000 FIB slots, pay that, e.t.c. I'd happily pay for that, because removing STP in the Access won't work if vendors are pushing product with FIB space stuck in the '90's. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Asr901 is a much different animal than 902/903 or 920. It probably is the worst mpls box ( feature-wise ) that I've ever played with. 902/903 and 920 are completely different in that aspect. Also, IIRC, it does not run XE like the rest. On 18 Mar 2015 22:52, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On 18/Mar/15 22:47, quinn snyder wrote: we’re seeing a larger uptake of these boxen in locations/customer environments were migration from tdm/serial to ethernet is occurring. think legacy monitoring systems wherein sonet/scada was used and there is a requirement/desire to replace gear and move towards converged ip infrastructure. the issue is that some sensors/interfaces aren’t natively ethernet and require some low-speed interface to bring it into the ip domain. however — this falls in line with what you’ve talked about with low-speed “mix-n-match” flexibility. i think cisco’s market (initially) was cell-site/ran backhaul. i’ve not done a price/module comparison between asr1k and asr902/903 — but would assume it comes down to requirements. both types of kit have been solid (with their oddities, of course) in my experience. I've never used the ASR902 or ASR903, so can't speak from experience. But looking at their density, my guess is they'd occupy much less space than an ASR1004 or ASR1006, so that would make sense given an ASR1000 packed with tons of low-speed ports won't need that much 1Gbps or 10Gbps Ethernet uplink real estate to soak up space. However, I have a feeling IOS XE on the ASR1000 may be more feature-rich than IOS XE ASR901 (based on some of the feedback those operating the box have posted in recent months). But, of course, I could be wrong... 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/ This e-mail and any attachment(s) contained within are confidential and are intended only for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed. The information contained in this communication may be privileged, or exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete the communication without retaining any copies. Rolaware Hellas SA is not responsible for, nor endorses, any opinion, recommendation, conclusion, solicitation, offer or agreement or any information contained in this communication. ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Hi, I see so it's the same as MEs and RSP1/2 -A It's a shame that Cisco decided that 20k is enough and that's it, if you want more go buy ASR9000. But I can sort of see their point cause fully loaded ASR903 is like a mini me version of the big ASR and if it would support 128k prefixes that would be a killer box. adam From: CiscoNSP List [mailto:cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com] Sent: 19 March 2015 01:14 To: Adam Vitkovsky; mark.ti...@seacom.mu; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X Hi Adam, ASR920 numbers: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/models-comparison.html Cheers From: adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk To: mark.ti...@seacom.mu; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:26:01 + Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X Mark Tinka Sent: 18 March 2015 08:00 What I want is an ASR920 with 40x or 48x ports, with 4x 10Gbps SFP+ uplinks, all line rate. And what about ASR903 with 2x RSP2A (2x for redundancy you won't get with ASR920) and 2x 2-Port 10GE XFP/SFP+ Module (2x for redundancy you won't get with ASR920) -as uplinks and e.g. 2x 8-Port 1GE SFP and 1-port 10GE SFP+ Module and 2x 8-Port 1GE SFP Module (4x for redundancy and modularity you won't get with ASR920) -as customer agg. or whatever you need A903 IOS-XE feature parity with XE on ASR1K is solid for the basic MPLS stuff like rLFA and BGP PIC Edge/Core. The only drawback is that despite big promises made on this forum Cisco still haven't release B version (Large Scale) of the RSP2 leaving us with only 20K prefixes per box. Does anybody know what are the (IPv4/v6/mac/mcast/...) numbers on ASR920 please? adam --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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/ --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 19/Mar/15 15:25, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Amen to that. I was looking at juniper MX104 as an alternative to ASR903 as there are no stupid route scale restrictions and according to some posts you can fit 890K paths and 500K prefixes in it just fine. However it only has one RP. And rLFA is pretty recent feature in Junos (read nod recommended by Juniper for production rollout). So I guess I’m once again 2 years ahead of the HW with my requirements. The MX104 is a dual-RE box, unless I misunderstand you. The only issue is they are PPC CPU's for now, but there's two in there. We are running rLFA (LDP) on Junos (14.2), and it works well. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Amen to that. I was looking at juniper MX104 as an alternative to ASR903 as there are no stupid route scale restrictions and according to some posts you can fit 890K paths and 500K prefixes in it just fine. However it only has one RP. And rLFA is pretty recent feature in Junos (read nod recommended by Juniper for production rollout). So I guess I’m once again 2 years ahead of the HW with my requirements. adam From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] Sent: 19 March 2015 10:47 To: Adam Vitkovsky; CiscoNSP List; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X On 19/Mar/15 12:40, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Hi, I see so it's the same as MEs and RSP1/2 -A It's a shame that Cisco decided that 20k is enough and that's it, if you want more go buy ASR9000. But I can sort of see their point cause fully loaded ASR903 is like a mini me version of the big ASR and if it would support 128k prefixes that would be a killer box. I know a vendor pushing product with tons of ports in 1U and 2U form factor switches that can hold 128,000 entries in FIB, reasonably priced. So this is not rocket science. You need those kinds of scales to support MPLS in the Access. One idea I've given a one vendor is license FIB slots. This way, they develop a single version of hardware with a maximum FIB size that does not break the bank, and license access to the FIB on a pay-as-you-grow model, e.g., if you want 5,000 FIB slots, pay this; if you want 100,000 FIB slots, pay that, e.t.c. I'd happily pay for that, because removing STP in the Access won't work if vendors are pushing product with FIB space stuck in the '90's. Mark. --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/Mar/15 09:57, Ulrik Ivers wrote: Hi, Yes, agree that the new ASR920 is the one you should be looking at. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/datasheet-c78-733397.html If you go with the ASR-920-24SZ-IM you can add a 2-port 10G interface card to get 6x10G on the box (oversubscribed, though). We have just ordered one of these and hopefully they will turn out to be a good choice. What I want is an ASR920 with 40x or 48x ports, with 4x 10Gbps SFP+ uplinks, all line rate. A 24-port unit with 4x 10Gbps uplinks makes no sense whatsoever. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/Mar/15 10:32, Gregor Jeker wrote: It does, at least if redundant uplinks are a requirement. Well, an east-west ring takes care of that. If you're going to build 4x diverse fibre paths, that will be expensive. Similarly, if you have 2x diverse fibre paths that both go down, you have bigger problems than ports on the switch. It's about the trade-off. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On Mar 18, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: What I want is an ASR920 with 40x or 48x ports, with 4x 10Gbps SFP+ uplinks, all line rate. Then how about an ASR9001? -- Robert inoc.net!rblayzor http://inoc.net/ ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Hi, Yes, agree that the new ASR920 is the one you should be looking at. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/datasheet-c78-733397.html If you go with the ASR-920-24SZ-IM you can add a 2-port 10G interface card to get 6x10G on the box (oversubscribed, though). We have just ordered one of these and hopefully they will turn out to be a good choice. /Ulrik -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: den 18 mars 2015 08:49 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X On 18/Mar/15 09:37, CiscoNSP List wrote: Hi Guys, Looking at both of these boxes to terminate 10Gb Aggs and a bunch of either VRF or VPLS tails...3800X looks to support more VRF's(2000 instances) vs 128 on the ASR902...but we only need a 2 or 3, just a heap of subints/vlan ints in the same vrf, but the 902 looks to be able to give me (With 8x1 Interface module x 4 ) 32 x 1Gb ports and 4 x 10Gb ports...price-wise they look pretty close...am I missing something with the ASR902...as they look like a really nice alternative to the ME3800X.3800X will only give me 24 x 1Gb ports and 2 x 10Gb ports...so would need more of them to accommodate the number of 10G ports I need. The upgrade path for the ME3600X/3800X is the ASR920. I'd consider the ASR920 if you're looking at the long-term. My only disappointment with the ASR920 as of today is that the 4x 10Gbps uplinks do not have 40x or 48x customer-facing ports. 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/ ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/Mar/15 10:57, Gustav UHLANDER wrote: Hello. We have one ASR920 that we are playing with also. It's a rather nice box we like the shallow depth but the CPU is pretty weak and the software feels rather incomplete. We would also like BGP advertised VPLS which we haven't been able to get working. We run this feature on our ME3600x and ASR9k boxes so it's a major drawback for us without it. Hopefully it will be available in later releases. The ASR920 software still has a ways to go. This is why we are still sticking to the ME3600X. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/03/15 08:59, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: A 24-port unit with 4x 10Gbps uplinks makes no sense whatsoever. It does, at least if redundant uplinks are a requirement. I had a ASR920 (24xSFP Version) in my hands recently, from tech perspective it really looks great, even if the case itself appears a little cheap. Is's just half the size compared with the depth of a ME3600X. It's console port is special, there is only a USB-A port on the devices, however, the box comes with a pigtail USB-A to RJ45 adapter. Gregor ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: What I want is an ASR920 with 40x or 48x ports, with 4x 10Gbps SFP+ uplinks, all line rate. A 24-port unit with 4x 10Gbps uplinks makes no sense whatsoever. 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/ Throw in some PoE and you've got a very interesting box. It isn't just the SP market that needs to eliminate STP :-) -- Tim: ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/Mar/15 12:19, Robert Blayzor wrote: Then how about an ASR9001? Too big, too pricey. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/Mar/15 14:17, Tim Durack wrote: Throw in some PoE and you've got a very interesting box. It isn't just the SP market that needs to eliminate STP :-) They'll have to build a separate box for that, otherwise my price will be unreasonably inflated :-). Good to hear the enterprise space wants to get rid of STP. It needs to go where RIP lives (or died). At any rate, that would have to be a copper port if you want PoE. We don't run copper ports in any of our Metro-E deployments; buying a copper SFP is so much easier than buying a copper switch. So I guess, on that basis, Cisco can build a PoE solution that is targeted toward non-ISP networks. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Thanks Mark - So where is the ASR902 positioned vs ME3800 + ASR920 ? Obviously the 902 is chassis-based...so more flexibility with port choice(If you need that) To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net From: mark.ti...@seacom.mu Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:49:00 +0200 Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X On 18/Mar/15 09:37, CiscoNSP List wrote: Hi Guys, Looking at both of these boxes to terminate 10Gb Aggs and a bunch of either VRF or VPLS tails...3800X looks to support more VRF's(2000 instances) vs 128 on the ASR902...but we only need a 2 or 3, just a heap of subints/vlan ints in the same vrf, but the 902 looks to be able to give me (With 8x1 Interface module x 4 ) 32 x 1Gb ports and 4 x 10Gb ports...price-wise they look pretty close...am I missing something with the ASR902...as they look like a really nice alternative to the ME3800X.3800X will only give me 24 x 1Gb ports and 2 x 10Gb ports...so would need more of them to accommodate the number of 10G ports I need. The upgrade path for the ME3600X/3800X is the ASR920. I'd consider the ASR920 if you're looking at the long-term. My only disappointment with the ASR920 as of today is that the 4x 10Gbps uplinks do not have 40x or 48x customer-facing ports. 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/ ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
A 24-port unit with 4x 10Gbps uplinks makes no sense whatsoever. I can make sense when you have 1 or 2 customers that you want to connect with 10Gbit (of course, you will have to think about uplink bandwidth as well, but thats besides the point). ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On Mar 18, 2015, at 12:50, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: I guess these boxes make sense in legacy RAN networks, where you may need a mix-and-match of old interfaces that you can uplink into your MPLS core. I suppose one could use them as an edge router where low-speed non-Ethernet interfaces are needed. For that, I'd typically go with an ASR1000 or MX104. we’re seeing a larger uptake of these boxen in locations/customer environments were migration from tdm/serial to ethernet is occurring. think legacy monitoring systems wherein sonet/scada was used and there is a requirement/desire to replace gear and move towards converged ip infrastructure. the issue is that some sensors/interfaces aren’t natively ethernet and require some low-speed interface to bring it into the ip domain. however — this falls in line with what you’ve talked about with low-speed “mix-n-match” flexibility. i think cisco’s market (initially) was cell-site/ran backhaul. i’ve not done a price/module comparison between asr1k and asr902/903 — but would assume it comes down to requirements. both types of kit have been solid (with their oddities, of course) in my experience. q. ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/Mar/15 22:47, quinn snyder wrote: we’re seeing a larger uptake of these boxen in locations/customer environments were migration from tdm/serial to ethernet is occurring. think legacy monitoring systems wherein sonet/scada was used and there is a requirement/desire to replace gear and move towards converged ip infrastructure. the issue is that some sensors/interfaces aren’t natively ethernet and require some low-speed interface to bring it into the ip domain. however — this falls in line with what you’ve talked about with low-speed “mix-n-match” flexibility. i think cisco’s market (initially) was cell-site/ran backhaul. i’ve not done a price/module comparison between asr1k and asr902/903 — but would assume it comes down to requirements. both types of kit have been solid (with their oddities, of course) in my experience. I've never used the ASR902 or ASR903, so can't speak from experience. But looking at their density, my guess is they'd occupy much less space than an ASR1004 or ASR1006, so that would make sense given an ASR1000 packed with tons of low-speed ports won't need that much 1Gbps or 10Gbps Ethernet uplink real estate to soak up space. However, I have a feeling IOS XE on the ASR1000 may be more feature-rich than IOS XE ASR901 (based on some of the feedback those operating the box have posted in recent months). But, of course, I could be wrong... 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/Mar/15 09:37, CiscoNSP List wrote: Hi Guys, Looking at both of these boxes to terminate 10Gb Aggs and a bunch of either VRF or VPLS tails...3800X looks to support more VRF's(2000 instances) vs 128 on the ASR902...but we only need a 2 or 3, just a heap of subints/vlan ints in the same vrf, but the 902 looks to be able to give me (With 8x1 Interface module x 4 ) 32 x 1Gb ports and 4 x 10Gb ports...price-wise they look pretty close...am I missing something with the ASR902...as they look like a really nice alternative to the ME3800X.3800X will only give me 24 x 1Gb ports and 2 x 10Gb ports...so would need more of them to accommodate the number of 10G ports I need. The upgrade path for the ME3600X/3800X is the ASR920. I'd consider the ASR920 if you're looking at the long-term. My only disappointment with the ASR920 as of today is that the 4x 10Gbps uplinks do not have 40x or 48x customer-facing ports. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Hi Adam, ASR920 numbers: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/models-comparison.html Cheers From: adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk To: mark.ti...@seacom.mu; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:26:01 + Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X Mark Tinka Sent: 18 March 2015 08:00 What I want is an ASR920 with 40x or 48x ports, with 4x 10Gbps SFP+ uplinks, all line rate. And what about ASR903 with 2x RSP2A (2x for redundancy you won't get with ASR920) and 2x 2-Port 10GE XFP/SFP+ Module (2x for redundancy you won't get with ASR920) -as uplinks and e.g. 2x 8-Port 1GE SFP and 1-port 10GE SFP+ Module and 2x 8-Port 1GE SFP Module (4x for redundancy and modularity you won't get with ASR920) -as customer agg. or whatever you need A903 IOS-XE feature parity with XE on ASR1K is solid for the basic MPLS stuff like rLFA and BGP PIC Edge/Core. The only drawback is that despite big promises made on this forum Cisco still haven't release B version (Large Scale) of the RSP2 leaving us with only 20K prefixes per box. Does anybody know what are the (IPv4/v6/mac/mcast/...) numbers on ASR920 please? adam --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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/ ___ 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Mark Tinka Sent: 18 March 2015 08:00 What I want is an ASR920 with 40x or 48x ports, with 4x 10Gbps SFP+ uplinks, all line rate. And what about ASR903 with 2x RSP2A (2x for redundancy you won't get with ASR920) and 2x 2-Port 10GE XFP/SFP+ Module (2x for redundancy you won't get with ASR920) -as uplinks and e.g. 2x 8-Port 1GE SFP and 1-port 10GE SFP+ Module and 2x 8-Port 1GE SFP Module (4x for redundancy and modularity you won't get with ASR920) -as customer agg. or whatever you need A903 IOS-XE feature parity with XE on ASR1K is solid for the basic MPLS stuff like rLFA and BGP PIC Edge/Core. The only drawback is that despite big promises made on this forum Cisco still haven't release B version (Large Scale) of the RSP2 leaving us with only 20K prefixes per box. Does anybody know what are the (IPv4/v6/mac/mcast/...) numbers on ASR920 please? adam --- This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 19/Mar/15 03:14, CiscoNSP List wrote: Hi Adam, ASR920 numbers: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/models-comparison.html Cisco should have at least doubled these numbers for the ASR920, coming from the ME3600X/3800X. I know other vendors with a similar form factor allowing up to 128,000 IPv4 entries in FIB. In an MPLS domain, BGP-SD is only as useful as how much IGP and MPLS label state you can hold in FIB. 20,000 is too low, IMHO. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 19/Mar/15 02:26, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: And what about ASR903 Too big :-). 1U is the sweet spot for me. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/Mar/15 19:31, Lukas Tribus wrote: I can make sense when you have 1 or 2 customers that you want to connect with 10Gbit (of course, you will have to think about uplink bandwidth as well, but thats besides the point). Which is Cisco's thinking. The problem with that is I want to be in a position where I can advertise (both to internal teams as well as customers) 10Gbps capability at a specific PoP. Starting a trend you can't scale is bad practice. 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] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/Mar/15 20:21, CiscoNSP List wrote: Thanks Mark - So where is the ASR902 positioned vs ME3800 + ASR920 ? Obviously the 902 is chassis-based...so more flexibility with port choice(If you need that) For me, the ASR902 and ASR903 are not interesting because we're a purely Ethernet house. I guess these boxes make sense in legacy RAN networks, where you may need a mix-and-match of old interfaces that you can uplink into your MPLS core. I suppose one could use them as an edge router where low-speed non-Ethernet interfaces are needed. For that, I'd typically go with an ASR1000 or MX104. 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/
