Hey Chris, On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 11:03, Chris Welti <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can't report from production, but we have a 8201-32FH (Q200/Gibraltar) in the > lab > right now. Currently considering it as a successor for 400G deployments > where we had NCS55A1-24H for 100G before. > So far so good for our use case as a basic PE. (unicast/multicast v4/v6, > OSPFv2/v3, BGP, MPLS for L2VPN VPLS/EoMPLS only, access ACLs) > Our needed feature set is very limited, without QoS, VRFs, MPLS TE, SR or > SRv6, so can't comment on any of those features. > > Overall it seems it has more features and less limitations than the Jericho+ > in the NCS55A1-24H, e.g. v6 egress ACLs work, support for flowspec, uRPF > allow-default. > My hope is that due to Cisco not depending on Broadcom and their SDK in those > chips that there will be less limitations and quicker fixes than in their > Jericho products, but who knows. > Otherwise seems pretty similar to Jericho2 products, except its less power > hungry. Thank you, I appreciate this. Are you focusing on Q200 because it ships, or did you look at Q100 but decided against it? I also similarly view it as a direct J competitor, and of course a lot of the same people were involved designing both (J1 and Q100). -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
