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

James Jun james at towardex.com
Thu Aug 3 10:11:57 EDT 2017

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:58:48AM +0100, adamv0025 at netconsultings.com wrote:
> Again, MX104 is/was competing with ASR903 or ASR902. 
> Seems line everyone forgot about the ASR903? Such a good work horse. 

FWIW, we tried rolling out ASR903 w/ RSP3 and it ended up being a total complete
disaster.  The software (Everest 16.5) to support bridging, VPLS and FAT-PW is
quite not mature (i.e. FP crashes and disconnects from RP within 2 minutes from
box starting to move traffic) and still have long ways to go.

I'm sure older IOS XE 3.16.x is probably production ready, but 36x 10GE box is
quite useless for me if it can't support FAT-PW on the Nx10GE uplink bundles,
which brought us to Everest release code that would support FAT-PW.

I see that there is new update to Everest release (16.6), but at this point, frankly
we ended up using ASR 9001 on sites that needed ASR903s.  It's costlier sure, but
we needed a box that could do everything on day 1, and didn't have time to ride
the development roadmap of a new product any further.


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list