[c-nsp] ASR920 is a ticking timebomb (CSCvk35460)

[Emille Blanc]

We've happily displaced the ASR901, and ASR920 with Juniper's ACX1100 in most parts of our network.
It has a few interesting limitations (IPSEC, NAT), but nothing that has caused us any problems doing P, PE and Aggregation work.
________________________________________
From: cisco-nsp [cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka [mark.tinka at seacom.mu]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 9:58 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 is a ticking timebomb (CSCvk35460)

On 26/Jan/19 17:15, James Jun wrote:

> One of the other reasons we're looking to phase out ASR920s over time is the small
> buffers.
>
> We also had an issue when oversubsribing shared on-chip buffers on the box (by using child
> policy-map to assign 100% queue on all ports), where sometimes, probably when buffers
> are exhausted, it freezes packet transmission on ports after a while, thus causing an
> outage.  We ended up removing that policy-map and are now only allocating 512KiB queue-limit
> per 1G port to prevent exhaustion.

But what would you replace it with? What else is out there?


> I suppose MX104 with decent discount may be an option, but control-plane is an issue.

Juniper have binned that box.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
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/