[c-nsp] ASR vs 6807

b.turnbow at twt.it b.turnbow at twt.it
Fri Nov 28 03:24:09 EST 2014


Hi Chris

Don't you still need es/sip cards for this ?
If it has changed it would be great.

Thanks

Brian
 
> Hi Simon,
> 
> you can also do port-to-subint on the Sup720 using ethernet interworking:
> 
> one end:
> 
> interface TenGigabitEthernet3/2
>   xconnect y.y.y.y 1 encapsulation mpls
> end
> 
> the other:
> 
> interface TenGigabitEthernet4/2.2010
>   encapsulation dot1Q 2010
>   xconnect x.x.x.x 1 pw-class atom-eth-iw end
> 
> The magic is in the pw-class atom-eth-iw:
> 
> pseudowire-class atom-eth-iw
>   encapsulation mpls
>   interworking ethernet
> 
> We're using that in production and it works just fine.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> On 27/11/14 12:10, Simon Lockhart wrote:
> > In simple terms (and I apologise if this is fixed in Sup2T, as most of
> > my experience has been on the Sup720), with the 6500/6800 platform,
> > you can only do port-to-port or subint-to-subint VPWS, but not
> > port-to-subint (which you can on the more capable boxes, or with the ES
> cards on the 6500/6800).
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 11:05:18AM +0000, R LAS wrote:
> >> Hi Simon
> >> can you detail more "ASR9k can be more flexible on EoMPLS (VPLS) than
> 6807" ?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >>> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:26:55 +0000
> >>> From: simon at slimey.org
> >>> To: dim0sal at hotmail.com
> >>> CC: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807
> >>>
> >>> On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 10:18:41AM +0000, R LAS wrote:
> >>>> Discussing a new architecture of DCI (Data Center Interconnection),
> >>>> Cisco raccomends both ASR9k and 6807.  The architecture requested
> >>>> by the customer forecast MPLS/VPLS supported by DCI.
> >>>>
> >>>>  From pricing point of view there is a quite big difference (win
> >>>> 6807), from feature point of view Cisco says the difference is
> >>>> "only" the number of mac-addresses supported and the sw modularity.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can anybody help in digging more the "technical" difference ?
> >>>
> >>> I'm going through much the same at the moment, and settling on 6807,
> >>> largely from a price perspective.
> >>>
> >>> ASR9k is (today) a more capable box for routing - particularly if
> >>> you want higher bandwidths. ASR9k has 100G ports today. 6807 only
> >>> has 40G. ASR9k can be more flexible on EoMPLS (VPLS) than 6807.
> >>>
> >>> 6807 has a lot of potential (880G per slot), but it's not supported
> >>> by either Supervisors or Linecards that are available today (current limit
> is 80G/slot).
> >>>
> >>> Simon
> >>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/






More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list