[c-nsp] ASR920 Opinions

[Erik Sundberg]

Stephen,

We have about 20 ASR920's deployed some are 24 Port Copper and some are 24 Port Fiber

Running version: asr920-universalk9_npe.03.16.04.S.155-3.S4-ext.bin
Advance metro IP license with 10G Ports

Core Facing ISIS+LDP+BFD,IPv4,IPv6,BGP 
Customer Services: Internet (Non BGP Customers), L3VPN, EoMPLS, VPLS/BridgeGroups, ENNI's, QOS Shaping and Policing

We will deploy these in a 10G ring of 6 devices then 2x 10G back to our core Routers

One down side is the 20K IPv4/IPv6 Route limit. So no full routes and we also place a RT Filter on our VPNv4 sessions back to the core.

We did hit a bug where sometime after you upgrade the 10G ports were admin down. I forget what Image this occurred on.

I am very happen with them the only down side is they don't have a 48x1G, 4x10Gport model.


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Fulton
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 12:38 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 Opinions

Hi Jason,

We're running several, primarily as PE's facing external networks, with ISIS, LDP, BGP, VPNv4, IPv6 (not 6VPE) and EoMPLS.  So far, no major issues, we're running 03.16.04.S or 03.16.05.S.  Core facing interfaces are IP only, not trunks attached to BDI's.  My only concern up to this point is the buffer size.  The PDF "Handling Microburst on Cisco ASR920"
outlines steps to mitigate it but the commands do not work on the versions I'm running.  It hasn't been a problem yet, but we'll see.

-- Stephen

On 2017-12-19 1:31 PM, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> Hey all,
> 
> With the ME3600 EOL, we’re looking to start deploying ASR920s.  These boxes would run 100% L3 on the core facing sides (at 10 or 20Gbps), and aside from the odd corner case, 100% L3 on the customer facing side.
> 
> Some of the more major features they’d run would be:
> ISIS
> LDP
> BFD
> BGP-VPNv4
> BGP-VPNv6 (6VPE)
> BGP Selective Route Download
> IPv6*
> ACL (ingress and egress)*
> Per-VRF label mode
> EoMPLS
> FAT-PW
> VRF aware DHCP Relay w/option 82 stamping (device, port (EFP?), VLAN) 
> VRF aware DHCP Server
> 
> Corner cases would include BGP signalled VPLS w/BGP-AD, and l2protocol support for peer/forward/tunnel primarily on CDP and STP-type frames, as required.
> 
> *ME3600s cannot support simultaneous configuration of egress ACLs and IPv6.  I’ve heard that the ASR920 resources are carved up differently, where this is no longer a problem.
> 
> My understanding is that the ASR920 behaves more like an ASR1000 than an ME3600 in terms of how L2 is implemented (ie: no more global vlan table, vlan database, etc and all EFP/bridge-domain based).  Also, I understand that these boxes have Netflow to some degree, but a cursory look at the documentation seems to suggest that you need to set the SDM profile to video (which affects the device scale as it re-configured the TCAM) if you want to enable Netflow?
> 
> I know this isn't the first time a “what are your experiences with these boxes like?” thread has made the rounds, but I wanted to throw it out again to see how much has changed since the last time it circulated.  So, while we wait for some of these guys for the lab, I’m looking for some feedback on what to expect from these boxes in terms of reliability (hardware and software), feature limitations/gotchas, a good, reliable code version, and anything else someone might want to share about these guys, good, bad or indifferent.
> 
> Thanks again, in advance.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> 
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/