Mailing List Archive

LSR platforms
What hardware platforms are operators running as P routers for smaller MPLS
networks? I’m not interested in large CRS type platforms, but simply an LSR
thats main function is MPLS switching at 10/40/100G speeds. Preferably
Cisco. Anyone have a recommendation based on experience?
_______________________________________________
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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
I can’t help you if Cisco is a hard requirement, but I’ve been using Arista’s Jericho and Jericho2 7280 series as Ps for a couple of years. I have nothing but amazing things to say about their products, pricing and especially their TAC.

> On Dec 10, 2020, at 1:02 PM, James Mitchell <jamesmitchell83123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What hardware platforms are operators running as P routers for smaller MPLS
> networks? I’m not interested in large CRS type platforms, but simply an LSR
> thats main function is MPLS switching at 10/40/100G speeds. Preferably
> Cisco. Anyone have a recommendation based on experience?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

_______________________________________________
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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
NCS55A1 is reasonable. 36x100G ports. There are various other boxes in the
NCS family that may have a port configuration you want.

Keep in mind it’s broadcom, and comes with limitations with respect to
things kike QoS.

For a pure LSR role it does the job well.

Dave

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 18:05, James Mitchell <jamesmitchell83123@gmail.com>
wrote:

> What hardware platforms are operators running as P routers for smaller MPLS
> networks? I’m not interested in large CRS type platforms, but simply an LSR
> thats main function is MPLS switching at 10/40/100G speeds. Preferably
> Cisco. Anyone have a recommendation based on experience?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
_______________________________________________
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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
For several years, I've been running an MPLS network with several ASR9000's on 1/10/20-LAG gbps interfaces. They operate very well. ASR9006's mainly, and a ASR9010

I've heard of the NCS5xxx as potentially what you might want as a dedicated P LSR. Can't speak from experience, other then early trials with it in my lab (but that was from several years ago, and it had serious issues, but in their defense, might have been because it was an early release, I dunno)

More recently, as we evaluated our growth and bandwidth expansion strategy, we realized to move to 100 gig interfaces, would need to gut the ASR9xxx...(from older trident lc's and 4g rsp's) so we went back and look at other vendors. We decided to drop in a "super-core" at 6 key locations, and uplink the previous ASR9k ring into the new Juniper MX960 super-core. Have been quite pleased with the MX line. You have MX240 small, MX480 medium, MX960 large. Cisco has similarly sized ASR's.

Both Cisco's ASR and Junipers MX are sweet, and stout products with their respective XR and Junos OS's. I've grown to like Junos more, even though XR was quite the (needed) improvement for the small/medium SP. (I guess some folks were benefiting from XR in the GRS and CRS for years)...frankly, seemed cisco HAD to get XR into something mid-sized to compete with Juniper's Junos. My perspective.

BTW, on mpls agg edge we had Cisco ME3600's for years too, pretty decent, but out grew them...likewise, went with Juniper ACX5048 there. I'd probably consider the ACX5448 or even more so the MX204 for that smaller edge at this point, as I don't think the ACX5048 integrates routing into MPLS L2 services... where as I was able to accomplish that on ME3600's and I think MX204 can too. (I think even the ACX5448 can)... but we are able to do lots of L3VPN on the ACX5048 for residential bb, and cell back haul pw's ... tons.

Sorry for getting long winded


- Aaron


_______________________________________________
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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
+1 on the NCS55A1's. We're using the NCS55A1-24H as P nodes + the flex
consumption model, and works like a charm. Haven't had issues yet and
works perfectly with just the CORE QOS policies attached.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 5:15 AM Dave Bell <dave@geordish.org> wrote:
>
> NCS55A1 is reasonable. 36x100G ports. There are various other boxes in the
> NCS family that may have a port configuration you want.
>
> Keep in mind it’s broadcom, and comes with limitations with respect to
> things kike QoS.
>
> For a pure LSR role it does the job well.
>
> Dave
>
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 18:05, James Mitchell <jamesmitchell83123@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What hardware platforms are operators running as P routers for smaller MPLS
> > networks? I’m not interested in large CRS type platforms, but simply an LSR
> > thats main function is MPLS switching at 10/40/100G speeds. Preferably
> > Cisco. Anyone have a recommendation based on experience?
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
_______________________________________________
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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
> James Mitchell
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 6:03 PM
>
> What hardware platforms are operators running as P routers for smaller
> MPLS networks? I’m not interested in large CRS type platforms, but simply an
> LSR thats main function is MPLS switching at 10/40/100G speeds. Preferably
> Cisco. Anyone have a recommendation based on experience?
>
I'm hesitant to recommend Broadcom based platform (NCS5k/Arista/ACX) for platform certification testing in a worry that it will bite us in a long run, though less so for a P role (as opposed to PE role).

What about Cisco 8201 vs Juniper PTX10001-36MR -these two seem to be identical, have the same speeds and feeds.
What I like about these is that they are 400G optimized to future proof the core.


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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 11:02, <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:

> I'm hesitant to recommend Broadcom based platform (NCS5k/Arista/ACX) for platform certification testing in a worry that it will bite us in a long run, though less so for a P role (as opposed to PE role).

You will struggle to use data to state why Broadcom has fundamentally
different risk profile than Spitfire and BT/paradise. Now I understand
for Cisco, clearly their focus will be Spitfire going forward. But
that argument can't be used to discriminate against Arista. Jericho
and Spitfire were literally designed under the same leadership.

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
> From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:15 AM
>
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 11:02, <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm hesitant to recommend Broadcom based platform (NCS5k/Arista/ACX)
> for platform certification testing in a worry that it will bite us in a long run,
> though less so for a P role (as opposed to PE role).
>
> You will struggle to use data to state why Broadcom has fundamentally
> different risk profile than Spitfire and BT/paradise. Now I understand for
> Cisco, clearly their focus will be Spitfire going forward. But that argument
> can't be used to discriminate against Arista. Jericho and Spitfire were literally
> designed under the same leadership.
>
Sorry buddy you lost me with the NPU codenames :)
With "Spitfire" do you mean the "Silicon One Q100" by Israeli Leaba Semiconductor (bought by cisco in 2016) founders include Eyal Dagan and Ofer Iny, founders of Dune Networks, which got sold to Broadcom in 2009 please?
And with "paradise" I guess you mean the PTX NPU? Not sure what you mean by "BT" though.

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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 16:09, <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:

> With "Spitfire" do you mean the "Silicon One Q100" by Israeli Leaba Semiconductor (bought by cisco in 2016) founders include Eyal Dagan and Ofer Iny, founders of Dune Networks, which got sold to Broadcom in 2009 please?

Yes.

> And with "paradise" I guess you mean the PTX NPU? Not sure what you mean by "BT" though.

Yes.

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
> From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:15 AM
>
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 11:02, <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm hesitant to recommend Broadcom based platform (NCS5k/Arista/ACX)
> for platform certification testing in a worry that it will bite us in a long run,
> though less so for a P role (as opposed to PE role).
>
> You will struggle to use data to state why Broadcom has fundamentally
> different risk profile than Spitfire and BT/paradise. Now I understand for
> Cisco, clearly their focus will be Spitfire going forward. But that argument
> can't be used to discriminate against Arista. Jericho and Spitfire were literally
> designed under the same leadership.
>
Fair point,
I guess one might argue that merchant silicon is cheaper compared to vendor silicon cause merchant silicon is less capable compared to vendor silicon (in other words sacrifices have been made).
And if that logic is applied to the Cisco's new "Silicon One Q100" -positioned as a merchant silicon, one has to ask how different will it be from comparable Broadcom chips.

But another view point might be,
With merchant silicon it's all about who has the biggest buying power (bigger lobby) right?
For example: cisco says we need the capability to implement feature X in a single pass through the new chip, while juniper and arista says we need it in two passes via recirc. to spare chip resources for feature Z. -well in this example it's tough luck for cisco.
And similarly I imagine this applies to all levels of the stack from actual chip architecture all the way to SDKs.
If Cisco says screw this I'm going to design my own chip and always going o prioritize my own needs then consider needs of others (to an extent obviously), then I could see how Cisco box for role A powered by Cisco's own merchant silicon chip will either perform better or have richer feature set than a Cisco box for the same role A but powered by a comparable Broadcom chip.


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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
On 12/10/20 20:02, James Mitchell wrote:

> What hardware platforms are operators running as P routers for smaller MPLS
> networks? I’m not interested in large CRS type platforms, but simply an LSR
> thats main function is MPLS switching at 10/40/100G speeds. Preferably
> Cisco. Anyone have a recommendation based on experience?

Old thread, but somehow, missed it.

We dumped our CRS-X's (8-slot) for the Juniper PTX1000 (2U box).

We realized that we didn't really need all of those fan trays, power
supplies, control planes, fabrics, line cards, forwarding cards, and
half a rack, just to push a serious amount of traffic.

It helps that one doesn't also need a chassis, nowadays, to carry a good
number of 100Gbps ports.

Sure, Cisco probably has something of similar size and stature as the
PTX1000, but given their new path, we couldn't be asked.

That said, as others also did, there are plenty of boxes carrying
Broadcom's J2 that will do the job, especially if you relegate it to
just a P function, and don't try to get funky with edge features.

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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
On 12/14/20 15:28, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:

> But another view point might be,
> With merchant silicon it's all about who has the biggest buying power (bigger lobby) right?
> For example: cisco says we need the capability to implement feature X in a single pass through the new chip, while juniper and arista says we need it in two passes via recirc. to spare chip resources for feature Z. -well in this example it's tough luck for cisco.
> And similarly I imagine this applies to all levels of the stack from actual chip architecture all the way to SDKs.
> If Cisco says screw this I'm going to design my own chip and always going o prioritize my own needs then consider needs of others (to an extent obviously), then I could see how Cisco box for role A powered by Cisco's own merchant silicon chip will either perform better or have richer feature set than a Cisco box for the same role A but powered by a comparable Broadcom chip.

For Cisco, Juniper and Nokia, Broadcom is a "me too" move, so they can
put a foot in the door (and hopefully, sell you long enough to the point
where you buy their own silicon).

For Arista, Arrcus, e.t.c., it's their bread & butter.

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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
On 12/10/20 20:28, aaron1@gvtc.com wrote:
> BTW, on mpls agg edge we had Cisco ME3600's for years too, pretty decent, but out grew them...likewise, went with Juniper ACX5048 there. I'd probably consider the ACX5448 or even more so the MX204 for that smaller edge at this point, as I don't think the ACX5048 integrates routing into MPLS L2 services... where as I was able to accomplish that on ME3600's and I think MX204 can too. (I think even the ACX5448 can)... but we are able to do lots of L3VPN on the ACX5048 for residential bb, and cell back haul pw's ... tons.

There are "better things" coming from Juniper in the Broadcom space for
Metro, in the coming months.

They even have my attention...

Stay tuned :-)...

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/
Re: LSR platforms [ In reply to ]
Full disclosure I work for Cisco.

There are a ton of Broadcom based boxes deployed in all roles these days. Certainly quite a few in P/LSR roles.

The 55A1-24H, 36H are 100G dense J+ based platforms. There are 10G dense platforms based on the same chips (55A1-48Q). There are also some newer J2 platforms that work really well as LSRs also if you are looking at a fixed platform.

8000 is a good fit if you want more capacity and a migration path to more 400G. The main difference between the 10001-36MR and the 8201-FH (32x400G) is the 10001 uses several NPUs to reach 9.6TB, the 8201-FH (32x400G) uses a single 12.8Tbps NPU. The power consumption of it is about 25% of the 10001.

Thanks,
Phil

From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net> on behalf of adamv0025@netconsultings.com <adamv0025@netconsultings.com>
Date: Friday, December 11, 2020 at 3:59 AM
To: 'James Mitchell' <jamesmitchell83123@gmail.com>, cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] LSR platforms
> James Mitchell
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 6:03 PM
>
> What hardware platforms are operators running as P routers for smaller
> MPLS networks? I?m not interested in large CRS type platforms, but simply an
> LSR thats main function is MPLS switching at 10/40/100G speeds. Preferably
> Cisco. Anyone have a recommendation based on experience?
>
I'm hesitant to recommend Broadcom based platform (NCS5k/Arista/ACX) for platform certification testing in a worry that it will bite us in a long run, though less so for a P role (as opposed to PE role).

What about Cisco 8201 vs Juniper PTX10001-36MR -these two seem to be identical, have the same speeds and feeds.
What I like about these is that they are 400G optimized to future proof the core.


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/
_______________________________________________
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/