[c-nsp] Cisco 7600 vs ASR 9000

[Dean Smith]

The 7600 supports NSF/SSO (Non-Stop Forwarding, Stateful Supervisor 
O(something)) essentially giving you the <5sec recovery but the neighbors 
need to be NSF Aware.

Or you can use RPR+ (the 30secs version) and ensure your layer3 network 
routes around the missing box in well under a second.

For our core - we're taking the second option.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nick Colton" <networkjedi at geekwhore.net>
To: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 12:07 AM
Subject: [c-nsp] Cisco 7600 vs ASR 9000


>I work for a small CLEC, we have been doing FTTP for 5 years now but are
> getting ready to update our core network and introduce IPTV services. 
> Cisco
> has been recommending the Cisco 7600 as our core router.  My concern is 
> that
> cisco told us that in the event of an RSP fail over the 7600 could take up
> to 30 seconds to begin routing packets again, this seems wrong to me since
> my old Extreme Networks BD 6808 can do fail overs and rebuild route tables
> in under 5 seconds but??  More recently I have been reading up on the ASR
> 9000 however and it appears that it would be better sized for our company
> than the 7600.  A few questions I have for the group.
> 1.  Has anyone used the ASR 9000 in place of a Cisco 7600?
>
> 2.  Is the ASR 9000 Carrier ready?  Meaning 5x9's of availability, few
> component failures, solid software...etc
>
> 3.  Has anyone had issues where it took the 7600 30 seconds to start 
> routing
> again after an RSP fail over?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
> __________ NOD32 4448 (20090922) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>