[c-nsp] Design recommendation from Cisco

[Tom Hill]

On 06/03/17 14:23, CiscoNSP List wrote:
> either a single 9906 or 9010 (Fully redundant, dual RSP), with
> NCS5K's hanging of each on as satellites...theyve also proposed dual
> A9K-MOD200-SE's with 2 x A9K-48x10G-1G-SE....those with 9Ks will know
> how much those cost...insanely expensive.

I'm curious as to how that mix of cards gets in there. I'd have thought
a pair of 48x10G/1G cards would see off any requirement for MOD200s,
unless of course they're aiming to sell you small quantities of 100G as
well?

Further, try to avoid the 9010, and the 9006. The 9906 will be an
excellent choice (does away with the need for a baffle for front-to-back
cooling, has upgradable Fabric, etc.) and like the 9910, will be
supported for much longer.

As to their overall design, it does sound like they've got dollar signs
in their eyes... Probably as a result of the SDN requirement.

The A9k is a very capable edge device that can happily operate in a core
role, but the port density does not lend itself well to that. Their
suggestion even goes against the standard model for larger builds, that
use NCS6k in the core, and A9k on the edge.

The NCS55k isn't "cheap" (the L3VPN/L2VPN licensing alone is insane) but
using it as a purely P device is pretty much what it's been designed for
from the outset. For these Cisco bods to be suggesting NCSk on the edge
is pretty insane, and somewhat contradictory to what they've been saying
about the feature set of the NCS55k as a core device; it's not ready yet.

I'm not a Cisco SE, and I've not fully evaluated the 'SDN' features of
each platform in great detail, but I'm fairly sure your initial idea was
far better than the one Cisco have tried to sell you.

I'd see if you could try and get a second opinion internally, or perhaps
try and speak to a few more SEs without the salesmen watching. :)

Good luck.

-- 
Tom