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

[Łukasz Bromirski]

Gents,

(<wears Cisco hat>)

> On 2 Aug 2017, at 23:46, Lukas Tribus <luky-37 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>  as a point of correction — iirc — asr1002x is running closer to an rp2.
>>  i don’t have one available to me at the moment, but i believe the code
>>  indicates as such.  comparing the ram, route, etc numbers leads me to
>>  believe this is true.
> 
> Agreed, the RP1 is a 32 bit platform and can only use 4 Gigs of RAM.
> 8 and 16 GB capable boxes are 64 bit (therefor >= RP2).
> 
> RP1 also has a terribly FIB convergence.
> 
> As the datasheet says: ASR 1002 and ASR 1002-F are the only boxes
> with RP1, everything else is not a RP1 (including 1002X).

Couple clarifications.

ASR 1001 and 1002 and 1002-F and RP1 modular platforms are
indeed RP1 based in various forms. Apart from fixed config platforms,
the memory on 1001 and 1002 can be upgraded, is supported, but
the way ASR 1k manages the memory makes it anyway capable
of using up to 8GB with 16GB memory config (half is always allocated
for redundant RP, even if you physically can’t fit another one in the
box). They’re now all EoS and that limits IOS-XE families you can
run on these (3.17 is the propably last one, there won’t be
16.x line on them going forward).

Original, modular chassis (1004 and 1006) can be upgraded from
RP1 to RP2, but won’t run RP3. Only 1013 can.

‘X’ versions, so ASR 1001X, 1002X, 1006X and 1009X and
obviously all modular were RP2 based - they have better signal
integrity and are capable of providing more bandwidth to both
LCs and ESP cards, thus better scalability. Of course, as always,
the versions with fixed RP/ESP combo (1001X and 1002X) have
slightly modified RP2 inside to handle closer integration of RP and ESP.

‘HX’ versions are current-gen, newest boxes, that can use
RP3 and up to 64GB of RAM. For fixed options there are 1001HX and 1002HX
as of now and they scale up to 16GB of physical RAM (1001HX)
and 32GB of physical RAM (1002HX).[1]

As for comparisions - 1001/1002/1002F are no longer in game,
and while they perform decently for control plane, even first gen ASR 9k’s
(like 9001/9001S and RP1s for 9006/9010) will beat them unless you
go for RR role in a specific config (SRD) - as Ytti mentioned, BGP on
32 bit IOS-XR has memory limitations per process. This is not
Patrick use case however I believe.

ASR 1k RP3 is very fast, but again - RP440/880 and RP1/RP2 for
newer ASR 9k boxes is simply faster, both in RP and FIB programming
role (if you’re dealing with forwarding network element, not RR only).
IOS-XR also brings better scalability and multi-AS capabilities. Again,
in Patrick case they may not be of immediate help but can provide
better investment protection for future if that’s important.[2]

Going back to original question - if that’s going to be refubrished unit,
9001 propably fits the bill in the best way. 9904 in the new data center
is propably the best choice given your requirements. On the other
hand, if You already have gear that handles physical connectivity (6500),
maybe CSR 1000v or IOS-XRv would fit the bill as control plane only?

Stay off the ASR9k cluster licenses BTW :) You don’t need them for
your use case.

(</wears Cisco hat>)

HTH,
— 
./
[1].http://d2zmdbbm9feqrf.cloudfront.net/2017/usa/pdf/BRKARC-2001.pdf <http://d2zmdbbm9feqrf.cloudfront.net/2017/usa/pdf/BRKARC-2001.pdf>
[2].http://clnv.s3.amazonaws.com/2017/eur/pdf/BRKARC-2003.pdf <http://clnv.s3.amazonaws.com/2017/eur/pdf/BRKARC-2003.pdf>