[c-nsp] Opinions about the next 6500/7600

[schilling]

I concur with single platform too. We are now 6500 data center,
core/distribution, internet edge/border. If we go forward, we have to
consider ASR9K, Nexus7000, and even ASR1000.  That's where Juniper
MX960 is really a good alternative for us to consider, plus MX960 has
all sorts of MPLS VPN support.

Schilling


On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:35:48PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> [ 6500 ]
>> Personally, I'm not sad to see it replaced.
>
> Well, neither am I - but then, I don't really want to buy three different
> boxes to replace a single 6500...  (with three different operating systems).
>
> But we're not buying yet - for our bandwidth and port density needs, the
> 6500 is still a very good match, and we know most of the quirks by now
> (most annoying is "show int acc" counters miscounting IPv6, slowwww CPU,
> and lack of per-interface netflow for IPv6).  And I *like* the 6500,
> it's just amazingly robust.  We even have a few running Sup2+CatOS,
> perfect layer2 edge switch for 100M<->GE-channel aggregation.
>
> gert
>
> --
> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
>                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
> fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>