On 16/Jul/20 20:48, Phil Bedard wrote:
> To be fair there are many many ASR9K systems out there today which have been
> in networks for many year. There is a new generation of cards for those
> coming out which do not require a chassis swap people will be using for many
> years to come.
If we wanted to use a purely Ethernet-focused box for our core when we
deployed back in 2014, I'd have gone with the MX960.
The CRS made a lot of sense because we had a need for plenty of
non-Ethernet links, and both the MX and ASR9000 were too expensive on a
per-slot basis.
> CRS-X I would agree doesn't have the longevity of some of the other
> platforms. In the end Cisco builds hardware people ask for, and
> unfortunately has to retire hardware people no longer want to purchase.
The CRS-X is neither EoS nor EoL. It can do 400Gbps/slot (even though I
am sure it can do more, but then where do you put the NCS 6000), and has
plenty of room for growth.
My problem with Cisco is their solution to a lot of their products is a
complete swap-out. Making us have to replace a ton of CRS-X's with
ASR9000's so I can get "cheap" 100Gbps ports when our current platform
is nowhere near dying is just silly and opportunistic.
>
>
> The 8000 series is much less power and higher throughput than a current
> generation PTX. An 8202 is around 750W. As mentioned you can use breakouts
> but to breakout 4x100G from 400G is going to require changing optics on the
> other side, 2x100G does not. The 8000 series and its silicon are going to be
> around for a long time.
The lack of 10Gbps support on the 8200's notwithstanding, I just don't
trust Cisco anymore. Boxes come and go with them before they'd have time
to bake in, who knows what they'll come up with next.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
