[c-nsp] ASR9001 Vs ASR1006

[Satish Patel]

What is the difference between ASR1006 and ASR1006-X ?

You are saying go with ASR9001 right?  Does it provide hardware redendency?

--
Sent from my iPhone

> On May 14, 2016, at 5:53 PM, James Jun <james at towardex.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 03:50:00PM -0400, Satish Patel wrote:
>> But most importantly, if you require high-touch services such as NAT,
>> Firewalling, IPSec, e.t.c., then the ASR1000 is a better fit than the
>> ASR9001.
>> 
>> We have very basic BGP configuration (mostly default route). but we
>> are going to use more ACL and PBR policies.
> 
> If you are going the ASR1K route, I would stay away from 1006.  Either go for the new 1006-X, or.. the ASR 1002-HX is now just about to start shipping for most customers any day now.
> 
> ASR 1002-HX is 2U, probably the closest to ASR 9001 you can get from the asr1k BU.  It can do 50 Mpps, which is similar to just about having only 1x Typhoon NPU active (like ASR 9001-S style).  
> 
> But if the OP is doing just BGP/peering stuff and don't require high touch stuff (IPSec, NAT), then yea, I'd go for ASR 9001 anyday.  Much higher pps, high QoS scale (remember that ASR 9001 is basically MOD80-SE, so you get mad queue support compared to what most chassis-based 9k line cards people could afford in practice, as -TR line cards are pretty common there).
> 
> James
> _______________________________________________
> 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/