[c-nsp] ASR9000v and distance

[Luis Anzola]

The ASR9K nV technology will simplify your NGN Carrier Ethernet 
Architecture by reducing the complexity of constantly growing L2/L3 
Access networks used for MPLS L2/L3 VPN Services Aggregation.

On 09/04/2012 15:07, Christian Kratzer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
>
>> nV is like being able to take a line card out of the ASR 9000 and 
>> move it to a remote location. You get full-featured ports (incl. L2, 
>> L3, HQoS, MPLS, VPLS etc.), all managed like any other port on the 
>> router, just located at a remote site
>>
>> Sure, you could transport services in L2 to a remote switch, but 
>> that's not really the same thing. I think of this as an alternative 
>> to buying a separate router to place on the remote site.
>
> yes it's all looking really hot.
>
>> And no, nV is not (currently) all that one could hope for, like 
>> redundant uplinks are missing. I'm sure that will improve over time. 
>> (At least, that's what marketecture like this says: 
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns524/ns562/ns592/asr_nv_100611.pdf)
>
> yes that's the one paper all googling ends up at.
>
> I do not care too much about having to manage one or multiple chassis.
>
> What I find interesting though is getting rid of hsrp, vrrp, glbp and 
> all other next hop redundancy shims while having redundant uplinks to 
> multiple chassis. Sort of like multichassis port-channels in Vss.
>
> I am not sure yet what can of worms this opens though as I am still 
> lacking understanding of new IOS XR concepts.
>
> Seems we do not have to worry about vlan id signifance so much as IOS 
> XR just pushes and pops vlan ids from subinterfaces.
>
> Lets just hope this all comes together and we will find a way to 
> transition smoothly ;)
>
> Greetings
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -A
>>
>> Sent from my tablet; excuse brevity
>>
>> On 07/04/2012, at 16.50, Aled Morris <aledm at qix.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The ASR9000v satellite doesn't sound like much of an improvement 
>>> over simply trunking to a conventional L2 switch and having each 
>>> switchport presented as a separate VLAN to the router for L3 
>>> processing.
>>>
>>> The ability to manage it all with one instance of IOS might be 
>>> simpler but using discrete L2 switches seems to have a lot more 
>>> flexibility.
>>>
>>> What am I missing?
>>>
>>> Aled
>>>
>>> On 7 April 2012 12:30, Asbjorn Hojmark <lists at hojmark.org> wrote:
>>> 1) Not currently
>>> 2) Yes
>>> 3) There is no local switching
>>>
>>> -A
>>>
>>> Sent from my tablet; excuse brevity
>>>
>>> On 07/04/2012, at 13.59, Robert Hass <robhass at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>> I have three questions regarding ASR9000v deployments:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Can I connect one ASR9000v to two ASR9010 (to have redundancy). If
>>>> yes are these ASR9010 have to be direct interconnected ?
>>>> 2) Can ASR9000v be eg. 200-300KM away from ASR9010 (10GE over DWDM).
>>>> 3) Are ASR9000v providing local switching between GE ports or all
>>>> traffic is going to upper layer (ASR9010) and going back to ASR9000v ?
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>