[c-nsp] Cisco 8000

[Mark Tinka]

On 19/Dec/19 22:34, James Bensley wrote:

>
> I would guess it [CRS-X] is too power and cooling inefficient. The
> same for the NCS6K...

Agreed.

But granted, over time, pretty much all large boxes are like this.


> The longevity of the NCS55K could be questionable although I'd expect
> the 8Ks to be more expensive, I expect the Silicon One chip to be more
> featureful and where the NCS55K sines is with dumb packet pushing. The
> NCS55Ks are high throughput and a relativity low price point with
> fewer features. They are also much more space, power and cooling
> efficient compared to the NCS6K and presumably the CRS-X but I don't
> know those boxes very well. Also Cisco are pumping new features in the
> NCS55K right now, so I don't think it will be dropped any time soon,

Agreed - the NCS5500 looks like it will be around for quite some time.

My main concern is the merchant silicon, which, granted, is not as big
an issue for a pure core use-case than if it were to go into the edge.
But still, something that keeps me up at night.


> it serves a different purpose and price point than the NCS8K as far as
> I can see.

I don't think the 8000 is part of the NCS family.


> Yeah I don't think there is any point buying NCS6K now. I think the
> NCS55K has superseded it. I'm not sure there is a place for larger
> ASR9K boxes either. We tried to re-purpose an ASR9922 recently that
> was pulled out and it just wasn't cost effective; given the number of
> packets they shift whilst consuming a whole rack of space and $LOL
> amount of power, if you just need edge capacity with minimal features
> and buffers it's not efficient.

Unless you are aggregating thousands-to-millions of customers into a
BNG, I don't see how these rack-size routers are any use nowadays, e.g.,
ASR9922, MX2020, e.t.c.

Mark.