Mailing List Archive

C8200/Spitfire/Pacific
Yellow,

The box has been out for quite some time now, but I've not heard much
from the community. I don't even know anyone else but 1299 who operate
it.

I'd very much like to hear from anyone who is running the device in
production about their experience with it, even if the experience is
just 'i configured it, we run features xyz, seems to work'. Or if you
specifically decided not to run it, why not?

I know there is a Juniper commissioned test report comparing Pacific
to Triton, but obviously we know that the commissioning party will
always win the test.

Thank you!
--
++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: C8200/Spitfire/Pacific [ In reply to ]
On 3/6/22 09:41, Saku Ytti wrote:

> Yellow,
>
> The box has been out for quite some time now, but I've not heard much
> from the community. I don't even know anyone else but 1299 who operate
> it.
>
> I'd very much like to hear from anyone who is running the device in
> production about their experience with it, even if the experience is
> just 'i configured it, we run features xyz, seems to work'. Or if you
> specifically decided not to run it, why not?

I'm equally curious that no one has really spoken about it in the wild.

Might it go the way of the NCS6000?

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: C8200/Spitfire/Pacific [ In reply to ]
Full disclosure as most of you know I work for Cisco. We have many customers at this point running these in production networks including some of the larger carriers worldwide. They are 400G dense devices so the market for them isn?t going to cover a huge amount of providers yet.

Just a few public references, although there are many non-public ones: Deutsche Telekom, COLT, PacketFabric, Arelion (formerly Telia Carrier), Internet2, Microsoft running SONiC on them. These are for the most part core/aggregation deployments.

Cisco also worked with Meta to create an OCP whitebox utilizing the Silicone One ASICs.

Thanks,
Phil

From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net> on behalf of Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa>
Date: Monday, March 7, 2022 at 12:11 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] C8200/Spitfire/Pacific


On 3/6/22 09:41, Saku Ytti wrote:

> Yellow,
>
> The box has been out for quite some time now, but I've not heard much
> from the community. I don't even know anyone else but 1299 who operate
> it.
>
> I'd very much like to hear from anyone who is running the device in
> production about their experience with it, even if the experience is
> just 'i configured it, we run features xyz, seems to work'. Or if you
> specifically decided not to run it, why not?

I'm equally curious that no one has really spoken about it in the wild.

Might it go the way of the NCS6000?

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/
_______________________________________________
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: C8200/Spitfire/Pacific [ In reply to ]
Can't report from production, but we have a 8201-32FH (Q200/Gibraltar) in the lab
right now. Currently considering it as a successor for 400G deployments
where we had NCS55A1-24H for 100G before.
So far so good for our use case as a basic PE. (unicast/multicast v4/v6, OSPFv2/v3, BGP, MPLS for L2VPN VPLS/EoMPLS only, access ACLs)
Our needed feature set is very limited, without QoS, VRFs, MPLS TE, SR or SRv6, so can't comment on any of those features.

Overall it seems it has more features and less limitations than the Jericho+ in the NCS55A1-24H, e.g. v6 egress ACLs work, support for flowspec, uRPF allow-default.
My hope is that due to Cisco not depending on Broadcom and their SDK in those chips that there will be less limitations and quicker fixes than in their Jericho products, but who knows.
Otherwise seems pretty similar to Jericho2 products, except its less power hungry.

--
Chris

On 06.03.22 08:41, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Yellow,
>
> The box has been out for quite some time now, but I've not heard much
> from the community. I don't even know anyone else but 1299 who operate
> it.
>
> I'd very much like to hear from anyone who is running the device in
> production about their experience with it, even if the experience is
> just 'i configured it, we run features xyz, seems to work'. Or if you
> specifically decided not to run it, why not?
>
> I know there is a Juniper commissioned test report comparing Pacific
> to Triton, but obviously we know that the commissioning party will
> always win the test.
>
> Thank you!


_______________________________________________
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: C8200/Spitfire/Pacific [ In reply to ]
Hey Chris,

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 11:03, Chris Welti <chris.welti@switch.ch> wrote:

> Can't report from production, but we have a 8201-32FH (Q200/Gibraltar) in the lab
> right now. Currently considering it as a successor for 400G deployments
> where we had NCS55A1-24H for 100G before.
> So far so good for our use case as a basic PE. (unicast/multicast v4/v6, OSPFv2/v3, BGP, MPLS for L2VPN VPLS/EoMPLS only, access ACLs)
> Our needed feature set is very limited, without QoS, VRFs, MPLS TE, SR or SRv6, so can't comment on any of those features.
>
> Overall it seems it has more features and less limitations than the Jericho+ in the NCS55A1-24H, e.g. v6 egress ACLs work, support for flowspec, uRPF allow-default.
> My hope is that due to Cisco not depending on Broadcom and their SDK in those chips that there will be less limitations and quicker fixes than in their Jericho products, but who knows.
> Otherwise seems pretty similar to Jericho2 products, except its less power hungry.

Thank you, I appreciate this. Are you focusing on Q200 because it
ships, or did you look at Q100 but decided against it?

I also similarly view it as a direct J competitor, and of course a lot
of the same people were involved designing both (J1 and Q100).
--
++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: C8200/Spitfire/Pacific [ In reply to ]
On 18.03.22 10:08, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Thank you, I appreciate this. Are you focusing on Q200 because it
> ships, or did you look at Q100 but decided against it?
>
> I also similarly view it as a direct J competitor, and of course a lot
> of the same people were involved designing both (J1 and Q100).

Had a look at the 8201 (Q100), but then the 8201-32FH (Q200) seemed like a much better choice.
Newer, better chip (twice TCAM so better route scale, more future-proof), less power (7nm), cheaper.
All 32 ports are the same QSFP56-DD, so no restrictions like on the 8201 for QSFP28 ports due to reverse gearboxes like in the 8201. (regarding breakouts)

--
Chris


_______________________________________________
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/