ASR1K (XE) has great BGP implementation, go for it if you are OK with density/throughput.
Regards, Jeff > On May 19, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Mark Tees <[email protected]> wrote: > > For the lists benefit, there is a 6 X 10GBE option for the ASR1000 > series it seems. No idea on pricing though. > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/application-networking-services/wide-area-application-services-waas-software/data-sheet-c78-729778.pdf > > Cheers, > > Mark > > >> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On 19/May/15 20:46, Ray Soucy wrote: >>> >>> An ASR1K might do the trick, but more likely than not you're looking at an >>> ASR9K if you want full tables; I don't have any experience with the 1K >>> personally so I can't speak to that. The ASR 9K is a really great platform >>> and is what we use for BGP here, but it's pretty much the opposite of cheap. >> >> The ASR1000 is a very good box, but I tend to prefer them for low-speed >> services, which are generally non-Ethernet in nature, e.g., downstream >> customers coming in via SDH. >> >> They do support 10Gbps ports, but that is a 1-port SPA; and the most you >> can have in today's SIP's (carrier cards) would be 4x 1-port SPA's. So >> not very dense. >> >> Their forwarding planes start at 2.5Gbps (fixed) all the way to 200Gbps >> (13-slot chassis). But you're more likely to run out of high-speed ports >> before you stress a 200Gbps forwarding plane on that chassis. >> >> So if the applications are purely Ethernet, I'd not consider the >> ASR1000. But if there is a mix-and-match for Ethernet and non-Ethernet >> ports, it's the perfect box. That and the MX104. >> >> Mark. > > > > -- > Regards, > > Mark L. Tees
