Re: [c-nsp] Acceptable port configurations for ASR 9902 (gripe)
Drew Weaver wrote on 31/01/2024 14:12: I know it is not the same but if it can do 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE it would sort of follow that it can do 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,10x10GE tbh this will depend on the hardware and how the gearboxes are set up. For example if you had a single ASIC/NPU with 400G forwarding capacity split out into 2x200G, with two gearboxes available on the two southbound paths, that might give you one of: 4x100G (i.e. gearboxes bypassed and 4 separate 100G ports directly connected to the ASIC/NPU), or 2x100G + one gearbox activated / taking all the traffic. The gearbox traffic could then be split out into various combinations of lower speed ports. But because you now have a breakout south of the gearbox, the architecture no longer has the physical capability to provide native 100G ports. Oops. This isn't necessarily an explanation of what the ASR 9902 is actually doing - it's just an example of how gearbox implementations can lead to unexpected outcomes. Nick ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Acceptable port configurations for ASR 9902 (gripe)
I know it is not the same but if it can do 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE it would sort of follow that it can do 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,10x10GE I can't really imagine a way that the underlying line card could be attached to the 'switch' whereby it wouldn't allow this given what it already does allow. If the slices didn’t have the possibility of failing independently of one another this would matter slightly less as one could configure slice0 as 1x100GE x4 and slice1 as 2x100GE +10x10+10x10 but since the slices can indeed fail independently it seems like a good idea to port-channel one port from each slice for each 'service'. That is just my opinion though. Thanks, -Drew -Original Message- From: Nick Hilliard Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 9:06 AM To: Drew Weaver Cc: 'cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net' Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Acceptable port configurations for ASR 9902 (gripe) Drew Weaver via cisco-nsp wrote on 31/01/2024 14:00: > So having a 1x100GE,1x100GE,4x25GE,10x10GE option and not a > 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,10x10GE option is just... laziness I guess is > how I would describe it. 4x25G is not the same as 1x100G - sounds like there's some weird gearbox stuff going on under the surface. It would be interesting to see a technical description of why this restriction exists. Nick ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Acceptable port configurations for ASR 9902 (gripe)
Drew Weaver via cisco-nsp wrote on 31/01/2024 14:00: So having a 1x100GE,1x100GE,4x25GE,10x10GE option and not a 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,10x10GE option is just... laziness I guess is how I would describe it. 4x25G is not the same as 1x100G - sounds like there's some weird gearbox stuff going on under the surface. It would be interesting to see a technical description of why this restriction exists. Nick ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Acceptable port configurations for ASR 9902 (gripe)
Yes, my point was that there is no reason for it to be limited that way. You can do 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE So having a 1x100GE,1x100GE,4x25GE,10x10GE option and not a 1x100GE,1x100GE,1x100GE,10x10GE option is just... laziness I guess is how I would describe it. Actually if it were up to me I would've made all of the ports on the ASR9902 available for use but bandwidth not to exceed 800Gbps total. But that is just me. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp On Behalf Of Hank Nussbacher via cisco-nsp Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2024 2:57 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Acceptable port configurations for ASR 9902 (gripe) On 26/01/2024 15:49, Drew Weaver via cisco-nsp wrote: > Hello, > > I just have a general gripe that I want to share regarding the ASR9902 and > since there is nobody to talk to at Cisco about any of this anymore, I > figured I would just share it here. > > This is an acceptable configuration: > > 1x100GE, 1x100GE, 4x25GE, 10x10GE > > But this is not: > > 1x100GE, 1x100GE, 1x100GE,10x10GE > > Think about that for a moment. Same story for any dual rate card: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cisco.com_c_en_us_td_docs_iosxr_asr9000_hardware-2Dinstall_ethernet-2Dline-2Dcard-2Dinstallation-2Dguide_b-2Dasr9k-2Dethernt-2Dline-2Dcard-2Dinstall-2Dguide_b-2Dasr9k-2Dethernt-2Dline-2Dcard-2Dinstall-2Dguide-5Fchapter-5F010.html-23id-5F45620=DwICAg=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw=QR5dAmTfAD0u9G0mkSLzfRyw-2Ee6Bci75XxGFHaMznfnfwXDddkjM-t3jv1fzKD=xcH5dL4b5ux5WnhblARjWBAfYMpSGld5twtyI4E7h4o= :-( -Hank > > Thanks, > -Drew > > > > ___ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_m > ailman_listinfo_cisco-2Dnsp=DwICAg=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A > _CdpgnVfiiMM=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw=QR5dAmTfA > D0u9G0mkSLzfRyw-2Ee6Bci75XxGFHaMznfnfwXDddkjM-t3jv1fzKD=LvxZ2GtlT_ws > oixslQD3glKXFeNwmmvw_Lz0pg0zFjY= > archive at > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__puck.nether.net_pi > permail_cisco-2Dnsp_=DwICAg=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnV > fiiMM=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw=QR5dAmTfAD0u9G0m > kSLzfRyw-2Ee6Bci75XxGFHaMznfnfwXDddkjM-t3jv1fzKD=xwhvYRBk6MqAOgFWPRu > 9pG3gQiiESaHe7EjhePKC1RA= ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_cisco-2Dnsp=DwICAg=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw=QR5dAmTfAD0u9G0mkSLzfRyw-2Ee6Bci75XxGFHaMznfnfwXDddkjM-t3jv1fzKD=LvxZ2GtlT_wsoixslQD3glKXFeNwmmvw_Lz0pg0zFjY= archive at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__puck.nether.net_pipermail_cisco-2Dnsp_=DwICAg=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw=QR5dAmTfAD0u9G0mkSLzfRyw-2Ee6Bci75XxGFHaMznfnfwXDddkjM-t3jv1fzKD=xwhvYRBk6MqAOgFWPRu9pG3gQiiESaHe7EjhePKC1RA= ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Acceptable port configurations for ASR 9902 (gripe)
On 26/01/2024 15:49, Drew Weaver via cisco-nsp wrote: Hello, I just have a general gripe that I want to share regarding the ASR9902 and since there is nobody to talk to at Cisco about any of this anymore, I figured I would just share it here. This is an acceptable configuration: 1x100GE, 1x100GE, 4x25GE, 10x10GE But this is not: 1x100GE, 1x100GE, 1x100GE,10x10GE Think about that for a moment. Same story for any dual rate card: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/iosxr/asr9000/hardware-install/ethernet-line-card-installation-guide/b-asr9k-ethernt-line-card-install-guide/b-asr9k-ethernt-line-card-install-guide_chapter_010.html#id_45620 :-( -Hank Thanks, -Drew ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
