[c-nsp] SUP720's memory, looking at options..

Mack McBride mack.mcbride at viawest.com
Tue Jul 5 17:26:39 EDT 2016

Don't get me started on Cisco versioning. It drives me nuts.

The documentation on the ASR1K seems to be better than the ASR9K.
A lot of the 9K documentation is posting on the support forum by ASR9K team members.
As for mac accounting on the ASR1K, I haven't had any use for it myself so I can't say.
I think it is 512 mac addresses per interface, not sure how sub interfaces are counted.
But I think that code is shared across multiple cisco platforms.
For an IX, you might be better off with something like a white box switch running custom code.

Here is a cisco reference on the accounting:

Mack McBride | Senior Network Architect | ViaWest, Inc.
O: 720.891.2502 | C: 303.720.2711 | mack.mcbride at viawest.com | www.viawest.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at greenie.muc.de]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:39 PM
To: Mack McBride
Cc: Gert Doering; Peter Kranz; 'cisco-nsp'; 'Jon Lewis'
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] SUP720's memory, looking at options..


On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 08:15:41PM +0000, Mack McBride wrote:
> The Sup6T is still TCAM limited.
> We are moving to ASR9Ks.

This was our plan, but right now the platform annoys me somewhat (MAC accounting is not reliable, and no MAC addresses in netflow whatsoever - you want at least one of them if you peer at IXPs... - and IOS XR train planning seems to be totally secret lore, like, why is XR 6.0 for ASR9k totally different from XR 6.0 for NCS6k, but still given the same version number [not mentioning the two releases of 6.0.1])

> But we have used the ASR1Ks where we need full netflow capture with great success.

Does ASR1k do netflow with src MAC?

I know it does MAC accounting, but limited to 512 entries - which is too limited for larger IXPs (like DECIX).  I wonder how it would cope with "more MACs" - like, do the first 512 addresses that show up correctly, and ignore the rest, whether it can be tweaked to expire entries after <x> minutes without traffic, or whether it's as bad and ill-documented as ASR9k...

> The port density and total throughput is not as high as the 6500 though.

Understood.  This is the problem with the 6500 - it's just too reliable, too many ports, and so small money - hard to justify getting boxes with less ports, less throughput for much more money.


USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de

This message contains information that may be confidential, privileged or otherwise protected by law from disclosure. It is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). Unless you are the addressee or authorized agent of the addressee, you may not review, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained within. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by electronic reply and immediately delete all copies of the message.

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list