[c-nsp] Internet border router recommendations and experiences

[Phil Bedard]

Ok well there are a number those as well.  The 55A2 and newer 57C3 also support a number of 100G ports.

I quite don’t fully understand the “verbose architecture” comment.  I’ve used a lot of router operating systems, Junos since 1999, SROS, XR, XE, you name it, and there isn’t a whole lot of difference between them in terms of configuration complexity and operations.  Obviously some just don’t have the feature set others do, but if you aren’t using the features then it doesn’t really matter.

There are at this point tens of thousands of NCS 540s deployed in that types of role, so I’m a bit curious if there was something specific in the config or other operations that was a show stopper issue?

Thanks,
Phil

From: Mark Tinka <mark at tinka.africa>
Date: Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 9:58 PM
To: Phil Bedard <philxor at gmail.com>, Brian Turnbow <b.turnbow at twt.it>, Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Internet border router recommendations and experiences

On 2/23/23 21:34, Phil Bedard wrote:
The original question was around an Internet border router with 10G support.   We have devices like the 55A2-MOD-SE which is similar to some other vendor devices (somewhat of a reference Broadcom design) which we’ve seen be very popular in border router deployments where you do not need a ton of bandwidth.

I think the OP came back to clarify that they need a 100Gbps-based router.




XRd runs in a container with very little memory, it doesn’t always have to be “fat”.   In fact some of the smaller 540 systems have very little RP memory.

Not so much the memory footprint of the OS, but really, it's rather verbose architecture for high-touch areas like the Metro, for which the NCS540 was to replace the ASR920.

Mark.