[c-nsp] ASR vs 6807

[b.turnbow at twt.it]

Thanks Chris

Rereading your post I see this is for subinterfaces. 
I for some reason associated it to   "SVI" .......  Too much wine for thanksgiving 

Regards

Brian




> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> no ES/SIP cards needed. This is on a simple WS-X6704-10GE card.
> It has been working for years already, lowest version tested was on
> 12.2(33)SRE6.
> Please note that you can not do VPLS with the Sup720, this is just for simple
> P2P tunnels (EoMPLS).
> 
> Regards,
> Chris
> 
> On 28/11/14 09:24, b.turnbow at twt.it wrote:
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >