On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 06:55, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > I quickly notice that the NCS6000 is no longer on that list of "core > routers". > > To be honest, I'm not sure whether I trust Cisco's long-term vision > about their core routers. The CRS-X, which still has plenty of juice, is > being abandoned, even though I think it still has at least 10 more years > in it.
I would guess it [CRS-X] is too power and cooling inefficient. The same for the NCS6K... > Then it was the NCS5000 they were proposing for a decent core to > compete against Juniper and Arista. Now I'm seeing the 8000, which uses > their own custom silicon and is likely to contradict their message of > pushing the NCS5000 as a core router, which is a Broadcom-based router. The longevity of the NCS55K could be questionable although I'd expect the 8Ks to be more expensive, I expect the Silicon One chip to be more featureful and where the NCS55K sines is with dumb packet pushing. The NCS55Ks are high throughput and a relativity low price point with fewer features. They are also much more space, power and cooling efficient compared to the NCS6K and presumably the CRS-X but I don't know those boxes very well. Also Cisco are pumping new features in the NCS55K right now, so I don't think it will be dropped any time soon, it serves a different purpose and price point than the NCS8K as far as I can see. > Last thing I want is to find myself less than 5 years into a box only to > be told that they aren't feeling it anymore, which is what happened when > we picked up the CRS-X back in 2014 :-\... > > Meanwhile, I'm told that the NCS6000 is still available, but only for > customers that need multi-chassis and that. I mean, in 2020, how many of > those are still around, if not about 3 or 4? Yeah I don't think there is any point buying NCS6K now. I think the NCS55K has superseded it. I'm not sure there is a place for larger ASR9K boxes either. We tried to re-purpose an ASR9922 recently that was pulled out and it just wasn't cost effective; given the number of packets they shift whilst consuming a whole rack of space and $LOL amount of power, if you just need edge capacity with minimal features and buffers it's not efficient. Cheers, James. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
