[c-nsp] Cisco ASR 9K Vs 7600

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, December 03, 2010 01:27:05 am raymondh (NSP) 
wrote:

> on the XR has a couple of limitation on SNMP support for
> V6 but I've got a strong feeling that it'll be
> implemented and conformed to the stuff closed to the V4
> MIBs.

Our IOS XR 3.9.1 running on our CRS routers doesn't support 
SNMPv6 protection in the MPP hierarchy.

This is planned for IOS XR 4.2, but hasn't yet been 
committed. Also, not sure if this will be available for both 
the CRS and ASR9000, or just the CRS. Even with the same 
revision code, the ASR9000 lags slightly behind the CRS in 
some respects.

> Set aside the backplane capabilities, it has much
> stronger points on the SIP and SPA as compared to the MX
> running with PICs. MX doesn't support low-speed SDH
> stuff whereas on the ASR it's already supported which is
> pretty similar to the 7600 concepts without the
> complications of selecting the right SIP as there's only
> one at the moment.

Using either the ASR9000 or MX-series as a SONET/SDH 
platform, while valid, is quite expensive. I'd focus 
energies on running things as-Ethernet-as-possible :-).

> If you're looking for a triple / quad player stuff, I
> believe the BU managing had received a couple of
> feedback requests for subscriber management related
> stuff and etc (I was one of them too) hence it should be
> implemented as part of BNG portfolio *thinks* (assumed)
> as it's a market driven thing. If the MX can do it, the
> ASR9000 should too.

That's the Cisco strategy - if the MX can do it, the ASR can 
do it cheaper. And one of the things they really harp on 
about is how the ASR9000 does Multicast replication on the 
fabric, while the MX does it on the line card, e.t.c.

Our Multicast architecture is different, so most of the 
replication happens in the "network", but this issue could 
be a concern for others (although I've not heard of anyone 
running into capacity issues on the MX).

> One of the points which is worth considering will be its
> XFP for OC192/STM64 in its 10G line card range as
> compared to the MX (though I've yet to test / try it)

At this point, even the most dense 10Gbps line card on the 
ASR9000 (the 16-port version) runs all XFP.

The MX is an SFP+-based line card on their 16-port models. 
This could be a problem if you're running long dark fibre 
spans.

> My guess is Cisco will be going ahead of what's being
> offered in JUNOS with MX or matching it.

Yes - and the development pace is quite high, given that we 
haven't really noticed any major bugs in IOS XR.

> At the moment the ASR9000's 16 x 10G card is based on
> over subscription basis and not 1:1 basis. I think they
> should fixed that matching MX's or surpassing the >160G
> / slot density.

The MX is also an oversubscribed 16-port line card. Both the 
MX and ASR9000's 16-port line cards will only do 120Gbps 
line rate per slot.

> Lastly, do give XR a benefit of doubt as nothing is bug
> free and it takes time. To a certain extent, JUNOS is
> undergoing the transition stage of what IOS went thru in
> terms of bugs. Maybe Huawei will get it fixed with the
> fastest lead time ?

JUNOS is a real mess right now, but there could be very good 
improvements by the end of 2011.

IOS XR has been pretty solid for us, really, and has been a 
welcome change to the JUNOS madness.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20101205/d6c4e155/attachment.bin>