[c-nsp] ME3800X/ME3600X/ME3600X-24CX/ASR903/ASR901 Deployment Simplification Feedback

[Mark Tinka]

On Monday, July 22, 2013 04:23:31 AM Stephen Fulton wrote:

> I'll add my +1 to Mark's suggestions, and request more
> 10GE ports. We're receiving more requests for 10GE
> (mostly sub-rate, some line-rate) from our customers and
> offers from our carrier suppliers for the same. The
> 3600X-24CX fits part of that bill, but I'd really prefer
> something with more than 8GE ports when the four 10GE
> ports are activated.

Stephen, as we wait to hear from Waris on this, I have 
considered having a version of my proposed fixed 
ME3600X/3800X chassis that provides for "several" SFP+-based 
10Gbps ports for such customers.

However, I'm not sure how cheaply Cisco would be able to 
make this while still keeping the spirit of the product line 
re: making the Access simpler with IP/MPLS rather than STP.

Given that it is actually more expensive for MPLS networks, 
today, to transport 10Gbps-based EoMPLS pw's across the 
core, until 100Gbps is more mainstream, I think customers 
will continue to just bypass the MPLS network and plug 
straight into the DWDM backbone and/or purchase dark fibre 
if they need 10Gbps point-to-point links.

Like we're seeing for Gig-E, we shall see customers move 
their 10Gbps links off DWDM/dark fibre and into the MPLS 
network when the core is running at much higher rates than 
the Access network, i.e., 100Gbps or more.

As such, the majority of 10Gbps links we may keep seeing for 
a while are IP Transit ones, in which case boxes like the 
ASR9000 and MX480/960 will continue to make better sense 
here than a fixed ME3600X/3800X chassis.

Just my thoughts, I could be way off :-)...

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/20130722/e7354c29/attachment-0001.sig>