[c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

[Patrick M. Hausen]

Hi all,


> Am 02.08.2017 um 12:05 schrieb Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>:
> On 2/Aug/17 11:58, Gert Doering wrote:
>> This is what we currently do for "BGP edge", and I totally love the
>> box.  Even though software updates are as annoying, mostly because the
>> flash disk is so sloooowwwww so the fairly complex processes take ages,
>> and then a bit.
>> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> I also find the ASR9001 a lot slower than the ASR1000 (RP2). But it's not as bad as the PPC-based MX's.

My preferred supplier just called in telling me that ASR 9001 are way more expensive
currently than, say, ASR 1002 with RP2. I'll get a quote later today.

ASR 9006 OTOH are rather cheap for their capabilities he claims - but definitely
too big for the current project. Possibly for the new data centre ...

So, any remarks about the 1002?

Thanks,
Patrick
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20170802/5bc7528c/attachment.sig>