[c-nsp] ASR9001 Vs ASR1006

[Satish Patel]

ASR9001 doesn't have hardware redundancy then why people going to buy it?

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 07:09:47PM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote:
>> But what is possible and what is commercially viable are not same
>> things. It's pretty logical for vendors to avoid R&D on technology
>> which they don't want to sell and instead move those finite R&D
>> resources on technology which they want to sell.
>
> Why wouldn't Cisco want to sell more ASR9001?  They are filling a given
> market niche extremely well - and they have nothing else which fits
> that role.
>
> So, unless they do something like an ASR9002 in "all tomahawk" for the
> same price(!!), abandoning 9001 doesn't make sense at all.  Making
> the "all tomahawk" 900x more powerful and more expensive would make
> it leave the niche where it's needed by the medium-sized ISPs (those
> that are happy to have 10G links to upstreams and IXPs, and where
> those 10G links or 20G bundles will be sufficient for a few years
> to come).
>
> Just looking at the used hardware market for ASR9001 underlines this
> very clearly - it's almost impossible to find ASR9001 for prices that
> are not close to "project discount" prices.
>
> gert
> --
> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
>                                                            //www.muc.de/~gert/
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
> fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/