Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000

2015-09-23 Thread Tony via cisco-nsp
ds, Tony. - Original Message - From: Nick Cutting To: Jeremy Bresley ; "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" Cc: Sent: Thursday, 24 September 2015, 0:21 Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000 I agree - and the very fact that when browsing for routers on cisco's website - by default for bran

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000

2015-09-23 Thread Nick Cutting
sco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Bresley Sent: 23 September 2015 14:24 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000 On 9/23/2015 2:24 AM, Tony via cisco-nsp wrote: Both of those options are quite probably overkill for what you&#x

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000

2015-09-23 Thread Jeremy Bresley
On 9/23/2015 2:24 AM, Tony via cisco-nsp wrote: Both of those options are quite probably overkill for what you've described. If a 2811 is currently doing what you need in the deployment and the only change is an increase in speed, just go with the next step up. For what you've described a 2911

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000

2015-09-23 Thread Tony via cisco-nsp
t is evaluated individually. Best of luck with your upgrade :) regards, Tony. - Original Message - From: Michael Malitsky To: "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2015, 10:52 Subject: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000 I need to upgrade the edge router

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000

2015-09-22 Thread Nick Hilliard
interfaces. An ISR4K series box would be better for this requirement. Nick > Chuck > > -Original Message- > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of > Michael Malitsky > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:53 PM > To: cisco-nsp@puck.neth

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000

2015-09-22 Thread Chuck Church
] ASR920 vs ISR4000 I need to upgrade the edge router for one of my deployments. Current 2811 is not expected to support the new WAN links. I need 4-5 ports (copper is fine), aggregate throughput up to 125Mb (not accounting for future growth), BGP with 3-5 peers and <100 routes, and QoS. I do

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000

2015-09-22 Thread Mark Tinka
On 22/Sep/15 08:51, Nick Cutting wrote: > I just had the same conundrum - although I needed gigabit. Mine was between > ASR1k and an ASR920. I had a requirement for netflow - and although on the > roadmap - I couldn't get a date out of cisco for the feature release on the > 920. I needed ne

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000

2015-09-21 Thread Nick Cutting
53 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000 I need to upgrade the edge router for one of my deployments. Current 2811 is not expected to support the new WAN links. I need 4-5 ports (copper is fine), aggregate throughput up to 125Mb (not accounting for future growth), BGP with

Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000

2015-09-21 Thread Pshem Kowalczyk
Hi, General feel for the boxes: ISR4331 is and enterprise/corporate type device. Quite flexible and versatile (albeit at a cost of lower throughput). ASR920 is a carrier MPLS aggregation/edge for mainly L2 services. Non-internet scale of L3 can be done as well. Can only forward packets (with limi

[c-nsp] ASR920 vs ISR4000

2015-09-21 Thread Michael Malitsky
I need to upgrade the edge router for one of my deployments. Current 2811 is not expected to support the new WAN links. I need 4-5 ports (copper is fine), aggregate throughput up to 125Mb (not accounting for future growth), BGP with 3-5 peers and <100 routes, and QoS. I don't ever expect to s