Mailing List Archive

On 26/01/2024 15:49, Drew Weaver via cisco-nsp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just have a general gripe that I want to share regarding the ASR9902 and since there is nobody to talk to at Cisco about any of this anymore, I figured I would just share it here.
>
> This is an acceptable configuration:
>
> 1x100GE, 1x100GE, 4x25GE, 10x10GE
>
> But this is not:
>
> 1x100GE, 1x100GE, 1x100GE,10x10GE
>
> Think about that for a moment.

Same story for any dual rate card:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/iosxr/asr9000/hardware-install/ethernet-line-card-installation-guide/b-asr9k-ethernt-line-card-install-guide/b-asr9k-ethernt-line-card-install-guide_chapter_010.html#id_45620

:-(

-Hank

>
> Thanks,
> -Drew
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

Yes, my point was that there is no reason for it to be limited that way.

You can do

1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE

So having a 1x100GE,1x100GE,4x25GE,10x10GE option and not a 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,10x10GE option is just... laziness I guess is how I would describe it.

Actually if it were up to me I would've made all of the ports on the ASR9902 available for use but bandwidth not to exceed 800Gbps total.

But that is just me.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Hank Nussbacher via cisco-nsp
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2024 2:57 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Acceptable port configurations for ASR 9902 (gripe)

On 26/01/2024 15:49, Drew Weaver via cisco-nsp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just have a general gripe that I want to share regarding the ASR9902 and since there is nobody to talk to at Cisco about any of this anymore, I figured I would just share it here.
>
> This is an acceptable configuration:
>
> 1x100GE, 1x100GE, 4x25GE, 10x10GE
>
> But this is not:
>
> 1x100GE, 1x100GE, 1x100GE,10x10GE
>
> Think about that for a moment.

Same story for any dual rate card:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cisco.com_c_en_us_td_docs_iosxr_asr9000_hardware-2Dinstall_ethernet-2Dline-2Dcard-2Dinstallation-2Dguide_b-2Dasr9k-2Dethernt-2Dline-2Dcard-2Dinstall-2Dguide_b-2Dasr9k-2Dethernt-2Dline-2Dcard-2Dinstall-2Dguide-5Fchapter-5F010.html-23id-5F45620&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw&m=QR5dAmTfAD0u9G0mkSLzfRyw-2Ee6Bci75XxGFHaMznfnfwXDddkjM-t3jv1fzKD&s=xcH5dL4b5ux5WnhblARjWBAfYMpSGld5twtyI4E7h4o&e=

:-(

-Hank

>
> Thanks,
> -Drew
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_m
> ailman_listinfo_cisco-2Dnsp&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A
> _CdpgnVfiiMM&r=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw&m=QR5dAmTfA
> D0u9G0mkSLzfRyw-2Ee6Bci75XxGFHaMznfnfwXDddkjM-t3jv1fzKD&s=LvxZ2GtlT_ws
> oixslQD3glKXFeNwmmvw_Lz0pg0zFjY&e=
> archive at
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__puck.nether.net_pi
> permail_cisco-2Dnsp_&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnV
> fiiMM&r=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw&m=QR5dAmTfAD0u9G0m
> kSLzfRyw-2Ee6Bci75XxGFHaMznfnfwXDddkjM-t3jv1fzKD&s=xwhvYRBk6MqAOgFWPRu
> 9pG3gQiiESaHe7EjhePKC1RA&e=

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_cisco-2Dnsp&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw&m=QR5dAmTfAD0u9G0mkSLzfRyw-2Ee6Bci75XxGFHaMznfnfwXDddkjM-t3jv1fzKD&s=LvxZ2GtlT_wsoixslQD3glKXFeNwmmvw_Lz0pg0zFjY&e=
archive at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__puck.nether.net_pipermail_cisco-2Dnsp_&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw&m=QR5dAmTfAD0u9G0mkSLzfRyw-2Ee6Bci75XxGFHaMznfnfwXDddkjM-t3jv1fzKD&s=xwhvYRBk6MqAOgFWPRu9pG3gQiiESaHe7EjhePKC1RA&e=
_______________________________________________
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/

Drew Weaver via cisco-nsp wrote on 31/01/2024 14:00:
> So having a 1x100GE,1x100GE,4x25GE,10x10GE option and not a
> 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,10x10GE option is just... laziness I guess is
> how I would describe it.
4x25G is not the same as 1x100G - sounds like there's some weird gearbox
stuff going on under the surface. It would be interesting to see a
technical description of why this restriction exists.

Nick
_______________________________________________
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/

I know it is not the same but if it can do 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE it would sort of follow that it can do 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,10x10GE

I can't really imagine a way that the underlying line card could be attached to the 'switch' whereby it wouldn't allow this given what it already does allow.

If the slices didn’t have the possibility of failing independently of one another this would matter slightly less as one could configure slice0 as 1x100GE x4 and slice1 as 2x100GE +10x10+10x10 but since the slices can indeed fail independently it seems like a good idea to port-channel one port from each slice for each 'service'.

That is just my opinion though.

Thanks,
-Drew




-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 9:06 AM
To: Drew Weaver <drew.weaver@thenap.com>
Cc: 'cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net' <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Acceptable port configurations for ASR 9902 (gripe)

Drew Weaver via cisco-nsp wrote on 31/01/2024 14:00:
> So having a 1x100GE,1x100GE,4x25GE,10x10GE option and not a
> 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,10x10GE option is just... laziness I guess is
> how I would describe it.
4x25G is not the same as 1x100G - sounds like there's some weird gearbox stuff going on under the surface. It would be interesting to see a technical description of why this restriction exists.

Nick
_______________________________________________
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/

Drew Weaver wrote on 31/01/2024 14:12:
> I know it is not the same but if it can do
> 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE it would sort of follow that it can
> do 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,10x10GE

tbh this will depend on the hardware and how the gearboxes are set up.
For example if you had a single ASIC/NPU with 400G forwarding capacity
split out into 2x200G, with two gearboxes available on the two
southbound paths, that might give you one of: 4x100G (i.e. gearboxes
bypassed and 4 separate 100G ports directly connected to the ASIC/NPU),
or 2x100G + one gearbox activated / taking all the traffic. The gearbox
traffic could then be split out into various combinations of lower speed
ports. But because you now have a breakout south of the gearbox, the
architecture no longer has the physical capability to provide native
100G ports. Oops.

This isn't necessarily an explanation of what the ASR 9902 is actually
doing - it's just an example of how gearbox implementations can lead to
unexpected outcomes.

Nick
_______________________________________________
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/