Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 8000

NCS5500 is Broadcom StrataDNX family (Jericho), Juniper QFX5k is StrataXGS family (Trident/Tomahawk), the platforms aren’t really comparable as while they share some similarities on paper they are very different beasts in the reality. The NCS5500 would be positioned more towards the QFX10k in ma

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 8000

On 12/12/2019 16:47, Bryan Holloway wrote: On 12/12/19 4:15 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 17:10, Sebastian Becker wrote: maybe because the 10k is taken by an actual series of routers from Juniper and Cisco had a 10k already but this is retired: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 8000

On 12/12/19 4:15 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 17:10, Sebastian Becker wrote: maybe because the 10k is taken by an actual series of routers from Juniper and Cisco had a 10k already but this is retired: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/obsolete/routers/cisco-1-series-routers.

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 8000

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 17:10, Sebastian Becker wrote: > maybe because the 10k is taken by an actual series of routers from Juniper > and Cisco had a 10k already but this is retired: > https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/obsolete/routers/cisco-1-series-routers.html There is also Cisco Firewpower 8

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 8000

Hi Drew, maybe because the 10k is taken by an actual series of routers from Juniper and Cisco had a 10k already but this is retired: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/obsolete/routers/cisco-1-series-routers.html --

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 8000

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 02:11:44PM +, Drew Weaver wrote: > I don't know. > > I think the 8201 is what the 9901 should have been as far as hardware, or > even the 9901 should've been 36x100GE. > > I guess it's possible they could release a fixed 99xx that has a sane port > configuration. I

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 8000

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 16:08, James Jun wrote: > 8000 is more or less "successor" to NCS 5500 than ASR9K. But in all > seriousness, 8000 seems like Cisco's counter-answer to Juniper QFX10K/PE chip. Longer term goal is to cover edge too, it is run to completion NPU to my best of knowledge (or 2

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 8000

I don't know. I think the 8201 is what the 9901 should have been as far as hardware, or even the 9901 should've been 36x100GE. I guess it's possible they could release a fixed 99xx that has a sane port configuration. -Original Message- From: James Jun Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 8000

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 02:00:21PM +, Drew Weaver wrote: > This is a silly question but why call it the 8000 if it's supposed to be the > successor to the 9900? > But it's not. 8000 is more or less "successor" to NCS 5500 than ASR9K. But in all seriousness, 8000 seems like Cisco's count

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 8000

This is a silly question but why call it the 8000 if it's supposed to be the successor to the 9900? -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp On Behalf Of Sebastian Becker Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 2:58 PM To: Saku Ytti Cc: cisco-nsp NSP Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 8000 Wow, they f