[c-nsp] ASR9001 Vs ASR1006

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 03:01:41PM -0400, Satish Patel wrote:
> ASR9001 doesn't have hardware redundancy then why people going to buy it?

Because it is fast, reasonably cheap, does not each much electricity,
and you can just put a second one next to it?

Hardware redundancy is totaly overvalued - our 6500s could all run 
dual-SUPs, and except for the layer2 things, *none* have dual-SUPs - 
because for a L3 scenario, just putting a second box next to it, running 
a different IOS train (!) will give you much better resiliency than 
"dual SUPs, same operating system, crashing together", or "dual SUPs,
something dies in a weird way blocking backplane traffic"...

Now, for a customer edge box, terminating 10.000s of customers, I can
see that you want dual-RSP and all that - plus reasonable reboot-free
software upgrades, so maybe not ASR9k either...

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 291 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20160517/d50f06e9/attachment.sig>