[c-nsp] MPLS PE Routers for a Mobile Carrier?

[Hashiru Aminu -X (haminu - SSAI at Cisco)]

Hi Saku


It depends again on what services  you are trying to provision...in all
cases I have seen the 7600 a way to go ..wihout cost beign the hindrance
:)

Hth

Hash

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Saku Ytti
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 11:41 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS PE Routers for a Mobile Carrier?

On (2008-08-02 20:20 +0000), Felix Nkansah wrote:

> I am working on an MPLS proposal for a mobile carrier (with 2mil+
> customers).
> 
> I need to decide on what routers to use as PE and P for their backhaul
> between 5 sites.
> 
> I am torn between proposing the Cisco ASR 1000 OR the Cisco 7600
series as
> PE/P.
> 
> Please let me know what your expert opinion is on this matter. They
require
> MPLS VPN, TE, and QoS.

You should find out very carefully if or not you can live with LAN
card limitations. Without knowing specific of your QoS requirements,
it's very likely that you are terminating customers to subinterfaces,
effectively requiring HQoS which LAN cards do not do.
 Other limitations that pop in my mind are, no vlan local significance,
no IPv6/uRPF (and chassis wide strict or loose in IPv4), no IPv6 CoPP,
no TOS byte transparency, either you lose up-to /128 lookup or L4
lookups
in IPv6.

If you find out that you can't live with LAN cards, the main attraction
of 7600/6500 goes away and you have much more options to choose from.
ASR1k, MX, M, GSR, CRS.
 But if you are aware of all the catches with LAN interfaces and can
live/workaround them, it's very good value to your money. However, in my
book they suite much better LSR/P role than LER/PE role.

-- 
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/