On 22/09/2020 07:10, Gert Doering wrote: > It's not "somewhat old", Cisco has explicitly declared the RSP-440 > end-of-life.
In colloquial British English use, these things mean the same thing :p > So - if you know exactly what you are getting yourself into, getting a > used ASR-9006 + RSP-440 + Typhoon LCs will be a nice bargain, but you > won't get a service contract for it, and you *will* run into "ah, no, > *that* feature is not implemented on this linecard..." issues. > > OTOH, for the original requirements "up to 3 Gbit/s", getting a box that > uses 1000+ Watts *and* needs so much space *and* is end-of-life might > not be a good choice... in Cisco land, there's the ASR9001 (nice box, > though the MPAs all carry the "we do not want to sell them" price tag) > or the ASR1000 as alternative (though I'd never buy one), or you look > into Juniper land for a MX204. The MX204 is really like "the box". > > Given the IOS XR is sufficiently different from IOS that you need to > invest in training anyway, have a close look at the MX204. Good advice, to be honest. I made no determination on the number of ports required, but if you don't need port density (or even if you do!) there may well be better options than a huge, power-hungry chassis, and those should be explored - Gert's advice here is good. I suspect the OP isn't entirely aware that the 9000 is a 'fully distributed' platform, unlikely the Cat6500/7600 platforms, where the DFCs were always optional, and my oh my does it cost. -- Tom _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
