[c-nsp] ASR920 vs ASR1001-x

[Mark Tinka]

On 29/Apr/16 12:35, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:

> Interesting - one of our local Cisco distributors, in a meeting with us
> and with Cisco people present, repeatedly called ASR920 a Layer 3 switch.
> With no protest from the Cisco representatives.

So it's a router because the CLI works more like an ASR1000 than an
ME3600X/3800X, e.g., you don't get a lot of the Layer 2 features that
you had in the ME3600X/3800X, e.g., no "switchport" concept, no VLAN
support, no 802.1Q trunking support, e.t.c. All Layer 2 features are
handled purely by the EVC construct, much like an ASR1000 or ASR9000.

QoS applications are also configured the same way as you do on the
ASR1000 than you do on the ME3600X/3800X. This is very telling.

And finally, FWIW, CCO lists all software for the ASR920 under "Routers
(Service Provider Edge Routers, to be exact)" and not "Switches".

All this took us by surprise, but in a good way. The biggest benefit
we've had with the ASR920 is the QoS implementation. The ME3600X/3800X
is massively complicated to deploy, but the ASR920 is as simple as the
ASR1000. Such a joy.

Mark.