[c-nsp] GLC-LH-SM vs SFP-GE-L

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday, November 19, 2010 05:30:24 pm Gert Doering wrote:

> Given the alternatives at the time, I still think we go
> the right choice - "lots of port, lots of forwarding
> power, affordable price".  We knew that there were
> hardware limitations (VLAN space, netflow/tcp flags) but
> the alternatives - GSR, CRS-1, Juniper M-Series - would
> have been very much unaffordable for the number of GE
> ports we wanted to have there.

I'd have to agree, at the time these boxes came out, there 
wasn't much choice if you were looking for high-end chassis-
based Ethernet routers.

> For the next round of purchases, I'm not sure what we'll
> end up at.  All "real routers" from $C tend to be a bit
> on the expensive side of things,...

Talk to your account team at Cisco for the ASR9000 - it's 
the only decent shot they have at dense Ethernet routers. 
There's something interesting going on there now...

> so we might go for
> "just a switch" from $J - the MXes really look
> promising... and less politics there.

The MX is probably one of the better platforms for this 
application today.

But Cisco's ASR9000 is now starting to look a little bit 
more mature.

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/20101119/4c374471/attachment.bin>