I read it as 1200 session now, potentially doubling in next 3 years which is what they want the box to handle ?
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021, 10:44:27 am AEST, Arie Vayner <ariev@vayner.net> wrote:
I believe the ask was for a smaller scale box (1200 sessions at peak), and the C8300 is the "newest" platform, which may also be cheaper (if you want to go with a Cisco network device)
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 4:06 PM Tony <td_miles@yahoo.com> wrote:
The cat 8300 don't seem to really offer anything over the 1001-X (or HX), or am I missing something ?
We have a 1001-X with close to 3000 sessions on it but minimal traffic (mostly backup links).
As you get to higher session counts, the biggest problem is when you get a mass re-connection event and it hammers the CPU. Using "call admission" can help out with this. I'm not sure whether the cat8300 platform would be any different in this regard (hard to find CPU specs and be able to compare for either platform).
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021, 07:53:52 am AEST, Arie Vayner <ariev@vayner.net> wrote:
Maybe the newer Catalyst 8300?
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:59 PM Erich Hohermuth <erich@hoh.ch> wrote:
Hi
With this low requirements you could think about a csr1000v (virtual gateway combined with a rackmount x86 appliance. This setup split your software and hardware dependency and help to optimize your lifecyle. Most import
it is much easier to get x86 hardware than network appliances today.
Regards
Erich
Von Unterwegs
> Am 15.11.2021 um 16:00 schrieb Wayne Lee via cisco-bba <cisco-bba@puck.nether.net>:
>
> ?
> Hello
>
> We are looking at replacing a pair of ASR 1001 which are currently doing LNS duty. Our requirements are small (1200 sessions at peak) but expecting to double that over 3 years. Throughput is less than 500Mbps on each. What is the current Cisco router for LNS duty ?
>
>