That's fair. For reference, I have been saying exactly what everyone here has been saying, but my boss wants the specifics :-)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:28:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cat 6500 vs ASR From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected] I think the problem is that the devil is in the details. Both boxes will support most of the same features (VPLS, NAT, Netflow, QoS). For every feature listed here there are caveats that need to be kept in mind when comparing the boxes (ex. for NAT 6k punts the first packet to built state, ASR1k doesn't. ASR1k will scale to larger NAT table sizes). -Pete On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Mark John <[email protected]> wrote: Dear oh dear! Yes, admittedly two very different platforms with different core purposes, but in term of support for logical features which can be compared side-by-side, that's not too difficult if you the info. Some gave an example earlier of support for VPLS, but never mind :-) > Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:41:40 +0000 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Cat 6500 vs ASR > > On 17/01/2013 11:56, Mark John wrote: > > True. So, ASR 1xxx > > "Compare two completely different things. Be specific." > > Oh my. > > Nick > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
