On 17/Jul/20 18:22, Phil Bedard wrote:
> The MX960 obviously came out a long time ago. There have been new chassis versions for it as well as the PTX5K to support higher bandwidth speeds but it was always called the same thing and backwards compatible.
Indeed. But we are likely 2 chassis revisions behind on the current
shipping MX platforms, and we are still happy, even with newer line
cards, fabrics, and so on.
Of course, you do get a point where you ultimately need to change a
chassis to go past a certain performance threshold, but the degree of
oscillation on the MX side, as a function of how much you need to "give
up" to get there, is not as bad.
I suspect the ASR9000 is not far off from the MX in that regard, but
like I said, if I had to choose one of them for my core, the MX would
have won that easily.
> Can't argue with the NCS 6K, IMHO it was really forced by some large providers who required a multi-chassis evolution beyond CRS, and that continues to be its main role. But very few really want to continue with multi-chassis at this point as router capacity has increased rapidly from where it was even a few years ago.
There was the ME2600X. There was the ASR14000. There was the ME4600.
There was the CRS LSR line card. I could go on... plenty of situations
we've found ourselves in where we can't bank on a promise that Cisco
have made.
> TBH the 8k is probably not a very good fit for your network today. Not sure if it's super public but Cisco does have the ASR 9903. It's 3RU, 600mm depth, 3.6Tb FD. It's 16x100G+20x10G fixed, and then a single 800G or 2T expansion card.
Yes, heard about this one. Still not as dense as we can get from the
PTX1000 or PTX10002.
But again with my broken record, we are done with this crew :-).
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/
> The MX960 obviously came out a long time ago. There have been new chassis versions for it as well as the PTX5K to support higher bandwidth speeds but it was always called the same thing and backwards compatible.
Indeed. But we are likely 2 chassis revisions behind on the current
shipping MX platforms, and we are still happy, even with newer line
cards, fabrics, and so on.
Of course, you do get a point where you ultimately need to change a
chassis to go past a certain performance threshold, but the degree of
oscillation on the MX side, as a function of how much you need to "give
up" to get there, is not as bad.
I suspect the ASR9000 is not far off from the MX in that regard, but
like I said, if I had to choose one of them for my core, the MX would
have won that easily.
> Can't argue with the NCS 6K, IMHO it was really forced by some large providers who required a multi-chassis evolution beyond CRS, and that continues to be its main role. But very few really want to continue with multi-chassis at this point as router capacity has increased rapidly from where it was even a few years ago.
There was the ME2600X. There was the ASR14000. There was the ME4600.
There was the CRS LSR line card. I could go on... plenty of situations
we've found ourselves in where we can't bank on a promise that Cisco
have made.
> TBH the 8k is probably not a very good fit for your network today. Not sure if it's super public but Cisco does have the ASR 9903. It's 3RU, 600mm depth, 3.6Tb FD. It's 16x100G+20x10G fixed, and then a single 800G or 2T expansion card.
Yes, heard about this one. Still not as dense as we can get from the
PTX1000 or PTX10002.
But again with my broken record, we are done with this crew :-).
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/