[c-nsp] 6880-X XL vs. ASR

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 03:19:19 PM Mark Mason wrote:

> Looking at some potential edge redesign options when
> comparing 6880-X-XL [larger route table @ 2M IPv4] &
> ASR1004/1006 platforms. Thinking about leaving the edge
> routers to ASR's (could be more than 4 carriers - 1 per
> ASR) and then route-reflecting down to the new L3
> core/distribution. Moving the L3 / HSRP from the ASR
> edge down to the 6880 level and disposing of HSRP.
> Thoughts? Current designs? Thinking VSS @ the 6880 level
> good choice/bad choice? Would like to you know your
> thoughts...

The C6880 is basically an updated 6500. So lots of 
improvements, but still running the same code family you'll 
see on the 6500.

It's also based on the SUP-2T, which isn't a bad thing.

The C6880 is a switch, so if you ever need non-Ethernet 
ports, the ASR1000 is a better beast. Also, I think you'll 
get better software feature support on the ASR1000 (not to 
mention that the ASR1000 is more mature than the C6880).

That said, we've bought a truckload of C6880's for use as a 
core switch. Looking forward to working on them.

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/20140505/7f4e743e/attachment.sig>