> > On Mar 18, 2015, at 12:50, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > > I guess these boxes make sense in legacy RAN networks, where you may need a > mix-and-match of old interfaces that you can uplink into your MPLS core. > > I suppose one could use them as an edge router where low-speed non-Ethernet > interfaces are needed. For that, I'd typically go with an ASR1000 or MX104. >
we’re seeing a larger uptake of these boxen in locations/customer environments were migration from tdm/serial to ethernet is occurring. think legacy monitoring systems wherein sonet/scada was used and there is a requirement/desire to replace gear and move towards converged ip infrastructure. the issue is that some sensors/interfaces aren’t natively ethernet and require some low-speed interface to bring it into the ip domain. however — this falls in line with what you’ve talked about with low-speed “mix-n-match” flexibility. i think cisco’s market (initially) was cell-site/ran backhaul. i’ve not done a price/module comparison between asr1k and asr902/903 — but would assume it comes down to requirements. both types of kit have been solid (with their oddities, of course) in my experience. q. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
