[c-nsp] Whats happens when TCAM is full on 7600/RSP720RSP-3CXL?

[Tom Hill]

On 22/09/2020 07:10, Gert Doering wrote:
> It's not "somewhat old", Cisco has explicitly declared the RSP-440
> end-of-life.

In colloquial British English use, these things mean the same thing :p


> So - if you know exactly what you are getting yourself into, getting a
> used ASR-9006 + RSP-440 + Typhoon LCs will be a nice bargain, but you
> won't get a service contract for it, and you *will* run into "ah, no,
> *that* feature is not implemented on this linecard..." issues.
> 
> OTOH, for the original requirements "up to 3 Gbit/s", getting a box that 
> uses 1000+ Watts *and* needs so much space *and* is end-of-life might 
> not be a good choice...  in Cisco land, there's the ASR9001 (nice box,
> though the MPAs all carry the "we do not want to sell them" price tag)
> or the ASR1000 as alternative (though I'd never buy one), or you look 
> into Juniper land for a MX204.  The MX204 is really like "the box".
> 
> Given the IOS XR is sufficiently different from IOS that you need to
> invest in training anyway, have a close look at the MX204.


Good advice, to be honest. I made no determination on the number of
ports required, but if you don't need port density (or even if you do!)
there may well be better options than a huge, power-hungry chassis, and
those should be explored - Gert's advice here is good.

I suspect the OP isn't entirely aware that the 9000 is a 'fully
distributed' platform, unlikely the Cat6500/7600 platforms, where the
DFCs were always optional, and my oh my does it cost.

-- 
Tom