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

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Aug/17 13:26, Gert Doering wrote:

> 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.

Just in general.

BGP convergence time is not too bad, but the Intel-based MX is a lot
faster in that regard, from experience.

No real complaints about the ASR9001, to be honest, apart from the
heavy-handed IOS XR upgrades.


> 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.

Power budget dictated the RE, which is why an Intel-based RE will never
come to the box.

The box was designed to compete with the ASR1000, which offers Ethernet
+ non-Ethernet versatility.

The MX240 and above and the ASR9000 chassis are not suited to
non-Ethernet line cards, even if they support them.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20170802/a2a0f44e/attachment.sig>