On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 17:20, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > We are avoiding the NCS520 simply because it's IOS XR (too heavy for an > agile Metro) and it's Broadcom.
... > Conversely, the MX204 makes the most sense to us for high-capacity > deliveries in the Metro: > > - We use it to drive a 100Gbps Metro-E ring. > - We hang ASR920's off of it to drive <= 1Gbps customer links. > - The 10Gbps customers go into the MX204. Have you considered the NCS540? It *IS* IOS-XR but I see that as positive, it is more automatable than IOS-XE on ASR920 in my opinion, it also has fewer and less complicated licensing in my opinion (in general I mean, not sure about NCS540 specifically). NCS540 has a 24x10G with 2x100G uplink combination and a 28x10G with 4x100G uplink combination, that's pretty much how I'd want to replace my previous usage of ASR920s (24x1G with 2-4x 10G uplinks). I'd be curious to know if you've had any operational issues that you share with regards to IOS-XR at the access layer, because it's not clear to me what you mean by "too heavy". 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/
