Hi, On Mon, 23 May 2016 at 21:04 CiscoNSP List <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cheers James - We need them all(5), as our POPs are geographically VERY > far apart lol......majority of our customers are eth based, and use DSL as > either redundant link, or where eth/fibre not > available.......unfortunately, they make a HUGE noise re latency(They are > VERY latency conscious!) when we tried a single LNS setup...i.e. All DSL > tails terminating on the one LNS.....as an example, 2 sites, 1 kilometre > apart, latency was over 120m/sec..if we had an LNS at that POP, latency > would have been 30ish....hard pill to swallow, but when the noisy customers > are spending lots of $ with you, it's best to keep them happy. > > Regarding features and the "X" range...Ive played a bit now with our Lab > 1006, and yes, definitely some "challenging"(insane!) differences between > them and the 7200....geez the stupid no compression thing, some reply > attributes cause the ASR to use full VAI, which causes it to fail also, qos > pre-classify under virt template also causes ASR to use full VAI(Again, > causes it to fail).....damn, Cisco loved making the transition from > 7200->ASR an easy one lol......Are there even more things I need to be > aware of with the old 1001 vs the 1001-X series?(From your e-mail, sounds > like there is?) > > Thanks very much for your notes+links....Ill be reading them tonight :) > If they are so far apart then why not use a simple PWE3 device (whatever suits your needs) and bring the traffic back to a central site(s) where the ASR1k is? Do you do a lot of local traffic switching between the DSL tails? kind regards Pshem _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
