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

Gert Doering gert at greenie.muc.de
Wed Aug 2 07:26:06 EDT 2017


On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:05:36PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> I also find the ASR9001 a lot slower than the ASR1000 (RP2). 

In which regards?  BGP convergence, general stuff, or "just the filesystem
annoyance"?  Curious, because I haven't seen anything as fast for BGP as
the ASR9k yet ("session up to full table loaded" in less than 45 seconds),
but I have no experience with ASR1k.

> Juniper are working on a new MX unit, Intel-based, as an upgrade to the
> MX104. So anyone who was holding out for a sane RE on the MX104 can
> start breathing now.

Why MX104 got a PPC based RE to start with, and got a different form
factor so MX240 REs wouldn't fit, is one of the deep mysteries I'm not
sure I ever want to know more about.

USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
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: 630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20170802/7aa1c4c5/attachment.sig>

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list