s been on the Sup720), with the 6500/6800
> >>> platform, you can only do port-to-port or subint-to-subint VPWS, but
> >>> not port-to-subint (which you can on the more capable boxes, or with
> >>> the ES
> >> cards on the 6500/6800).
> >>>
> &
@slimey.org
To: dim0...@hotmail.com
CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807
On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 10:18:41AM +, R LAS wrote:
Discussing a new architecture of DCI (Data Center Interconnection),
Cisco raccomends both ASR9k and 6807. The architecture requested
by the custome
On Friday, November 28, 2014 10:24:09 AM b.turn...@twt.it
wrote:
> Don't you still need es/sip cards for this ?
> If it has changed it would be great.
The SUP720 has always been able to support VLAN-mode to
port-mode. You just need to interwork as one poster
mentioned a few messages ago.
Mark
hu Nov 27, 2014 at 11:05:18AM +, R LAS wrote:
> >> Hi Simon
> >> can you detail more "ASR9k can be more flexible on EoMPLS (VPLS) than
> 6807" ?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >>> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:26:55 +
> >>> From: si..
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Simon Lockhart wrote:
In simple terms (and I apologise if this is fixed in Sup2T, as most of my
experience has been on the Sup720), with the 6500/6800 platform, you can only
do port-to-port or subint-to-subint VPWS, but not port-to-subint (which you can
on the more capable
Hi Gert,
> From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de]
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 3:27 PM
> > What should we recommend to our customers Maserati or Ferrari - they
> both have a Ferrari engine inside though the price difference is huge.
>
> Well, as the underlying architecture of ASR9
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 01:30:00PM +, Vitkovský Adam wrote:
> What should we recommend to our customers Maserati or Ferrari - they both
> have a Ferrari engine inside though the price difference is huge.
Well, as the underlying architecture of ASR9k and 6807/6500 is way
different (NPU vs
n
can you detail more "ASR9k can be more flexible on EoMPLS (VPLS) than 6807" ?
Regards
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:26:55 +
From: si...@slimey.org
To: dim0...@hotmail.com
CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807
On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 10:18:41AM +, R LAS wro
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 03:47:35 PM Mattias
Gyllenvarg wrote:
> Disregarding price, the only real issue with the ASR9k
> platform is the software upgrade procedure. *shudder*
The promise was that that would go away with IOS XR 5 and
later. Of course, I was not naive to believe it :-).
C
Disregarding price, the only real issue with the ASR9k platform is the
software upgrade procedure. *shudder*
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:37 PM, R LAS wrote:
> DCs are 40 km away...
>
> QFX5100 is the competitor, but on the DC-LAN, not on the DCI
>
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] AS
nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of R
> LAS
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 11:19 AM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807
>
> Discussing a new architecture of DCI (Data Center Interconnection), Cisco
> raccomends both ASR9k and 680
DCs are 40 km away...
QFX5100 is the competitor, but on the DC-LAN, not on the DCI
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807
> From: and...@2sheds.de
> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 22:39:03 +1100
> CC: si...@slimey.org; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> To: dim0...@hotmail.com
>
> The 680
Sent from a mobile device
> On 27 Nov 2014, at 21:26, Simon Lockhart wrote:
>
> 6807 has a lot of potential (880G per slot), but it's not supported by either
> Supervisors or Linecards that are available today (current limit is 80G/slot).
Always love this statement - yes - you can use the sam
>> To: dim0...@hotmail.com
>> CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807
>>
>>> On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 10:18:41AM +, R LAS wrote:
>>> Discussing a new architecture of DCI (Data Center Interconnection), Cisco
>>> racc
On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 10:18:41AM +, R LAS wrote:
> Discussing a new architecture of DCI (Data Center Interconnection), Cisco
> raccomends both ASR9k and 6807. The architecture requested by the customer
> forecast MPLS/VPLS supported by DCI.
>
> From pricing point of view there is a quite big
; To: dim0...@hotmail.com
> > CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807
> >
> > On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 10:18:41AM +, R LAS wrote:
> > > Discussing a new architecture of DCI (Data Center Interconnection), Cisco
> > > raccomends both ASR9k
Hi Simon
can you detail more "ASR9k can be more flexible on EoMPLS (VPLS) than 6807" ?
Regards
> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:26:55 +
> From: si...@slimey.org
> To: dim0...@hotmail.com
> CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807
>
> On
Discussing a new architecture of DCI (Data Center Interconnection), Cisco
raccomends both ASR9k and 6807.
The architecture requested by the customer forecast MPLS/VPLS supported by DCI.
>From pricing point of view there is a quite big difference (win 6807), from
>feature point of view Cisco says
18 matches
Mail list logo
