Disregarding price, the only real issue with the ASR9k platform is the software upgrade procedure. *shudder*
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:37 PM, R LAS <[email protected]> wrote: > DCs are 40 km away... > > QFX5100 is the competitor, but on the DC-LAN, not on the DCI.... > > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807 > > From: [email protected] > > Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 22:39:03 +1100 > > CC: [email protected]; [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > > > The 6800 is a l3 switch. The ASR9k is a full blown router. > > > > If you need to connect to non Ethernet circuits you will need a router. > If you want real qos you will need a router. > > > > How far are the DCs apart? > > > > Inter dc l2 is never a great idea if it can be avoided. > > > > You may also want to look at the qfx51000 > > > > Sent from a mobile device > > > > > On 27 Nov 2014, at 22:05, R LAS <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Simon > > > can you detail more "ASR9k can be more flexible on EoMPLS (VPLS) than > 6807" ? > > > > > > Regards > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:26:55 +0000 > > >> From: [email protected] > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> CC: [email protected] > > >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR vs 6807 > > >> > > >>> On Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 10:18:41AM +0000, R LAS wrote: > > >>> Discussing a new architecture of DCI (Data Center Interconnection), > Cisco > > >>> raccomends both ASR9k and 6807. The architecture requested by the > customer > > >>> forecast MPLS/VPLS supported by DCI. > > >>> > > >>> From pricing point of view there is a quite big difference (win > 6807), from > > >>> feature point of view Cisco says the difference is "only" the number > of > > >>> mac-addresses supported and the sw modularity. > > >>> > > >>> Can anybody help in digging more the "technical" difference ? > > >> > > >> I'm going through much the same at the moment, and settling on 6807, > largely > > >> from a price perspective. > > >> > > >> ASR9k is (today) a more capable box for routing - particularly if you > want > > >> higher bandwidths. ASR9k has 100G ports today. 6807 only has 40G. > ASR9k can > > >> be more flexible on EoMPLS (VPLS) than 6807. > > >> > > >> 6807 has a lot of potential (880G per slot), but it's not supported > by either > > >> Supervisors or Linecards that are available today (current limit is > 80G/slot). > > >> > > >> Simon > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/ > -- *Med Vänliga Hälsningar / Best Regards* *Mattias Gyllenvarg* _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
