[c-nsp] Cisco 8000

[James Bensley]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 17:20, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> We are avoiding the NCS520 simply because it's IOS XR (too heavy for an
> agile Metro) and it's Broadcom.

...

> Conversely, the MX204 makes the most sense to us for high-capacity
> deliveries in the Metro:
>
>     - We use it to drive a 100Gbps Metro-E ring.
>     - We hang ASR920's off of it to drive <= 1Gbps customer links.
>     - The 10Gbps customers go into the MX204.

Have you considered the NCS540?

It *IS* IOS-XR but I see that as positive, it is more automatable than
IOS-XE on ASR920 in my opinion, it also has fewer and less complicated
licensing in my opinion (in general I mean, not sure about NCS540
specifically).

NCS540 has a 24x10G with 2x100G uplink combination and a 28x10G with
4x100G uplink combination, that's pretty much how I'd want to replace
my previous usage of ASR920s (24x1G with 2-4x 10G uplinks).

I'd be curious to know if you've had any operational issues that you
share with regards to IOS-XR at the access layer, because it's not
clear to me what you mean by "too heavy".

Cheers,
James.