<div dir="ltr"><div>>I read it as 1200 session now, potentially doubling in next 3 years which is what they want the box to handle</div><div><br></div><div>Correct, we are expecting to double within the next 3 years. a fair portion of the links are backup links..</div><div><br></div><div>My concern for the 1001-x was end-of-sale/support but it has been pointed out that end-of-sale has not been announced and we should have 5 years of support when that happens giving us 5 years usage minimum. I'll have a look at the C8300 and also the csr1000v. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I've been out of the LNS game for quite some time (7206 vxr, 7201 and 2821's were the last I used). Thanks for the input everyone.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Wayne<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 01:09, Tony via cisco-bba <<a href="mailto:cisco-bba@puck.nether.net">cisco-bba@puck.nether.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr">I read it as 1200 session now, potentially doubling in next 3 years which is what they want the box to handle ?</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="gmail-m_-8981797797470694714ydpd13c43d8yahoo_quoted_7709982226">
<div style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(38,40,42)">
<div>
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021, 10:44:27 am AEST, Arie Vayner <<a href="mailto:ariev@vayner.net" target="_blank">ariev@vayner.net</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="gmail-m_-8981797797470694714ydpd13c43d8yiv1758380812"><div><div dir="ltr">I believe the ask was for a smaller scale box (1200 sessions at peak), and the C8300 is the "newest" platform, which may also be cheaper (if you want to go with a Cisco network device)</div><br clear="none"><div id="gmail-m_-8981797797470694714ydpd13c43d8yiv1758380812yqt89092"><div><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 4:06 PM Tony <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:td_miles@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">td_miles@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr">The cat 8300 don't seem to really offer anything over the 1001-X (or HX), or am I missing something ?</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">We have a 1001-X with close to 3000 sessions on it but minimal traffic (mostly backup links).</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">As you get to higher session counts, the biggest problem is when you get a mass re-connection event and it hammers the CPU. Using "call admission" can help out with this. I'm not sure whether the cat8300 platform would be any different in this regard (hard to find CPU specs and be able to compare for either platform).</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div>
</div><div id="gmail-m_-8981797797470694714ydpd13c43d8yiv1758380812gmail-m_-697092052638135803ydp12f5e32eyahoo_quoted_7546613036">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(38,40,42)">
<div>
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021, 07:53:52 am AEST, Arie Vayner <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:ariev@vayner.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ariev@vayner.net</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><div id="gmail-m_-8981797797470694714ydpd13c43d8yiv1758380812gmail-m_-697092052638135803ydp12f5e32eyiv5848296018"><div><div dir="ltr">Maybe the newer <a shape="rect" href="https://www.secureitstore.com/datasheets/C8300-Datasheet.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Catalyst 8300</a>?</div><br clear="none"><div id="gmail-m_-8981797797470694714ydpd13c43d8yiv1758380812gmail-m_-697092052638135803ydp12f5e32eyiv5848296018yqt23969"><div><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:59 PM Erich Hohermuth <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:erich@hoh.ch" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">erich@hoh.ch</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
With this low requirements you could think about a csr1000v (virtual gateway combined with a rackmount x86 appliance. This setup split your software and hardware dependency and help to optimize your lifecyle. Most import<br clear="none">
it is much easier to get x86 hardware than network appliances today.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Regards<br clear="none">
Erich<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Von Unterwegs<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> Am 15.11.2021 um 16:00 schrieb Wayne Lee via cisco-bba <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:cisco-bba@puck.nether.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">cisco-bba@puck.nether.net</a>>:<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> \ufeff<br clear="none">
> Hello<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> We are looking at replacing a pair of ASR 1001 which are currently doing LNS duty. Our requirements are small (1200 sessions at peak) but expecting to double that over 3 years. Throughput is less than 500Mbps on each. What is the current Cisco router for LNS duty ?<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
cisco-bba mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cisco-bba@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-bba@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>