On Thursday, October 20, 2011 12:58:41 AM Keegan Holley wrote: > Cards are cheaper than entire routers in most cases > especially at N*10 and 40G speeds. Assuming you want > chassis based, with redundant control planes and > whatever the vendor uses for fabirc blades. I'm not > saying everyone should throw their core P routers into a > dumpster, but I don't see how having them saves money. > You also have to add the cost of service contacts, > power, fingers and eyes to keep them running, etc.. I > think people who need separate cores should have them. > However, I don't see how P routers save money or reduce > complexity.
Example - I have a PE router which is aggregating GPON and Metro-E Access devices. I have more Access devices that need aggregating than I have ports, partly because the device also has P functionality. So half the slots are running P, the other half, PE. If I keep my design philosophy, I'll just buy another box or bigger one and continue the same approach. At some point, it stops making sense because on the one hand, you need lots of ports but can take a little oversubscription (PE side), while on the other, you need lots of ports but want large bandwidth + line rate performance (P side). The math works against you here as you scale up. Moreover, $$ isn't the only factor to consider when deciding how layered you want your network to be. Ongoing operations is a huge concern, at least for us. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
