[c-nsp] Cisco ME3800X/ME3600X - Any experiences worth sharing?

[Sigurbjörn Birkir Lárusson]

On the question of whether they're worth buying,

The ASR903, which afaik uses the same whale platform, allows you to have
either one or two (redundant) and field-replacable RSPs of which two
models are available,one being pretty much the ME3600X and the other which
is pretty much the ME3800X in a active/standby configuration. Power
supplies are redundant AC or DC.

It also allows modular interface configurations, with six interface module
slots offering you a choice of 1 port 10GE, 8 port GigE-SFP, 8 port GigE
Copper as well as 16 port T1/E1 and 4 port channelized OC3/STM-1/1 or (on
the same module but not at the same time) 1 port OC12.

Different needs for different people, if you want modularity (the ME3600X
is either all SFP gig or all copper gig, and has no E1/OC3/OC12 support at
all) then the ASR903 is probably your choice, if you want cheaper and
fixed and don't mind the Copper/SFP choice then the ME3600X and ME3800X
might be a better choice for you.  The ASR903 also runs IOS XE if that
matters to you...

Different needs for different people, the ASR903 is far more modular, the
ME3600X/ME3800X is probably cheaper and fixed in its configuration. I have
no doubt the software support will arrive, it's just a question of how
long you have to wait for individual features, and you can have some
impact on that by bugging your account manager.

Kind regards,
Sibbi


Þann 26.1.2012 12:01, skrifaði "Mark Tinka" <mtinka at globaltransit.net>:

>On Thursday, January 26, 2012 07:24:21 PM Nick Hilliard
>wrote:
>
>> There are several important features which are still not
>> there, including ipv6 (broken), RSPAN (unimpl), policy
>> routing (unimpl), ASN32 support (unimpl), unicast RPF
>> (unimpl), QoS (problems with egress policing).
>
>That pretty much sums up the key issues we're facing too.
>
>If you're not doing egress IPv4 ACL's on a dual-stacked
>interface, then IPv6 will work sufficiently for you. Even
>IS-IS supports IPv6 with MT, which is awesome.
>
>The lack of uRPF is glaring, but you'll likely get that for
>v4 before it comes out for v6.
>
>Egress policing is poorly supported today. As of now, you
>can only do egress policing for queues that are being
>scheduled as LLQ. In earlier code, it's not even there; a
>shaper would be your only option.
>
>I felt 32-bit ASN support is too far out, given many new
>ISP's or customers are being allocated 32-bit ASN's from the
>RIR's today.
>
>> Having said that, the metro ethernet functionality looks
>> awesome, and the hardware itself is very juicy
>> (reasonably large buffers, or enormous on the me3800x),
>
>Yes!
>
>These are really great boxes for Metro-E solutions, whether
>you're extending MPLS into the Access like we are, or not.
>The EVC infrastructure is well written, and while some
>things could be polished, newer code brings new features and
>fixes for old bugs in this area.
>
>> and development is progressing extremely quickly on the
>> system, both in terms of fixing existing problems and
>> adding new features.
>
>Agree.
>
>It's certainly worth the investment. Do not be put off by
>anyone saying the box isn't ready. That's just code, which
>can be fixed. We took the risk and have no regrets.
>
>As Nick says, talk to your SE for a feature road map, so you
>know where Cisco are going with the platform.
>
>Mark.