On 19/Dec/19 22:47, James Bensley wrote:
> > Have you considered the NCS540? We did. Two major problems as I've shared on this list before: - IOS XR - Broadcom chipset > > 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). I like IOS XR, but in an area of the network which we don't touch as often. We use it in the core and peering edge. In the Metro, where we are deploying hundreds of ASR920's a year, IOS XR is just too fat. > 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". RPL is great, but too verbose. IOS XE is not as rich as RPL, but it's simple enough to deploy and troubleshoot. IOS XE upgrades is upload, reboot, done. I think we all know how IOS XR and its band of SMU's is. When you are dealing with hundreds-to-thousands of routers, IOS XR starts to rear its ugly head. I just don't feel it's lean and mean enough for a large scale Access. And yes, you could automate in order to solve that issue, but I need my engineers to know how to work with boxes when glossy automation fails. Mark. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
