Mailing List Archive

On 31/Oct/19 13:30, Tom Hill wrote:

>
> When I last looked at this, several years ago, the cost of support for
> the Juniper MX (in this case, MX480) was ridiculous next to the cost of
> the hardware. It amounted to paying a lunatic amount for the hardware,
> but with a deposit and three instalments.

Might have been a case of the times. We don't see this as an issue today.

We are, however, seeing these from Arista.

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/

On 31/10/2019 11:40, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Might have been a case of the times. We don't see this as an issue today.


Notably I was buying <10 devices. My buying power was invariably a lot
lower than that of many others at the time.

--
Tom
_______________________________________________
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/

On 31/Oct/19 17:05, Tom Hill wrote:

>
>
> Notably I was buying <10 devices. My buying power was invariably a lot
> lower than that of many others at the time.

Even then.

We started off with Arista buying 4x core switches.

We've since upped that to a much larger order in recent years.

Little has changed in how they price support, but they are coming around.

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/

Lukasz,

> That’s true of course. 9901 would be better entry-level choice with
> years in front of it.

I find that the 9901 being entry level is quite high. There is the 120Gbps
license but the device itself is quite heavy and large and the power
consumption more than the 9001. I think the success of the ASR920 shows
that small size and low power usage are highly valued.

I would love to see a smaller option - just a single NPU, maybe 1RU, and
half the power usage. This would give a much more fitting entry level
model and allow users to push out the ASR99xx 64bit xr model to smaller
sites where the ASR9901 is just too big .

Thanks

Ivan
_______________________________________________
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/

From: Ivan Walker
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 6:17 PM

> That’s true of course. 9901 would be better entry-level choice with
> years in front of it.

I find that the 9901 being entry level is quite high. There is the 120Gbps license but the device itself is quite heavy and large and the power consumption more than the 9001. I think the success of the ASR920 shows that small size and low power usage are highly valued.

I would love to see a smaller option - just a single NPU, maybe 1RU, and half the power usage. This would give a much more fitting entry level model and allow users to push out the ASR99xx 64bit xr model to smaller sites where the ASR9901 is just too big .

NCS540 is your XR answer then, as a successor of ASR920, but it's Broadcom inside.
Alternatively MX204.

adam

_______________________________________________
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/

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 01:45:55PM -0000, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
> I find that the 9901 being entry level is quite high. There is the 120Gbps license but the device itself is quite heavy and large and the power consumption more than the 9001. I think the success of the ASR920 shows that small size and low power usage are highly valued.

Agreed. This is our biggest gripe also. At least we've found that power consumption in practice is not as bad as datasheet says (practical usage in most scenario seems to be between 450 to 600 W), but it is also DEEP as if it is some data center box (I guess it is..). Field guys used to working in telco environments hate it (where as 9001 was more in line with traditional telco style field deployment).

Other than the big footprint requirement, definitely loving the ASR9901s so far out in the field. It's quite a big hammer, but so far has been a very stable workhorse.

>
> NCS540 is your XR answer then, as a successor of ASR920, but it's Broadcom inside.
> Alternatively MX204.

NCS540 definitely ain't it for us. Oh and with NCS 540, you are required to buy subscription license to deploy the box -- last I checked, there is no option to deploy NCS 540 with a perpetual license. Not a big fan of recurring subscription schemes for access network elements, so that's another reason NCS540 will never see the light of day in our setup.

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/