> On 2Aug, 2017, at 03:24, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2/Aug/17 12:10, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > >> So, any remarks about the 1002? > > It depends; there are different ASR1002's. > > The ASR1002-X and the ASR1002-HX. > > The ASR1002-X is older, and runs the RP1, which is the slower one. We > use them for a bit of peering, and it's not bad - certainly better than > the MX80 and MX104's RE’s.
as a point of correction — iirc — asr1002x is running closer to an rp2. i don’t have one available to me at the moment, but i believe the code indicates as such. comparing the ram, route, etc numbers leads me to believe this is true. > The ASR1002-HX is on RP2. based on what i’m reading — the asr1002hx is closer to an rp3-based platform, again — comparing the numbers. i could be wrong on this. > > Stay away from the ASR1002 or ASR1002-F. Those are too old for life. > > In general, I'd say focus on the RP2 and RP3 chassis. agreed. q. -- quinn snyder | [email protected] _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
