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

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Aug 2, 2017, at 3:10 AM, Patrick M. Hausen <hausen at punkt.de> wrote:
> 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?

PCH has a lot of ASR9001s and ASR9006s in production.  A few ASR1001X.  We’re just doing the lab-work now to figure out whether the NCS5501 can replace the ASR9006 in some situations.

The 9001 is a real workhorse, and we continue to buy them.  The ASR1001X is just a little too small to work for our medium-sized sites, and too expensive for our small sites.

The NCS5501 looks like it’ll be great for medium-to-high throughput but low-complexity sites, particularly when paired with a Nexus 92300YC or 93180YC-EX switch.  If the memory limitations don’t prove to be too constraining.

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20170802/d12834e2/attachment-0001.sig>