RE: Cisco NCS5501 as a P Router

[Ben Cornish]

We are currently looking at the 5501 as a BGP'less super Core / P router
configuration - as a replacement for the troubled 6840 platform.
Curious who is running these with Brocade LSP's running through them ?
I'm not overly convinced these are the right platform yet and happy to take
direct feedback.

We followed Cisco Recommendation on installing 6840's into our Core as P
routers / BGP'less Super Core and had nothing but issues with them.
Wrong forwarding labels / stuck LSP's. / heaps of Optics problems.
Only to be told later that MPLS-TE Auto-Tunnel won't be coming to the
platform either.  We’ve been pretty unhappy with that platform.

Seems the Cisco code can't handle new LSP mid-point creations with the same
LSP ID.
We currently have an issue around Brocade wanting to recalc and LSP
path(midpoint failure), but wanting to use the same LSP id to create it-
Cisco's want it to expire out first.
Cisco sees this particular issue as Brocade not understanding the RFC  - yet
Brocade say the same thing ...

Curious of anyone out there today using NCS5501's with Brocade LSP's
transiting them ?

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Gustav Ulander
Sent: Sunday, 28 May 2017 12:43 AM
To: Radu-Adrian Feurdean <na...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: SV: Cisco NCS5501 as a P Router

Hello.
We are running 5001 also and we have the same issue with it programming the
wrong entry into the hardware.
Interesting to hear that the issue is still in 6.1.2 since we were thinking
about upgrading to that one to see if it fixes the issue but I think we will
give it a pass.
Seems the BU cant find why its happening only that it indeed is happening.
They don’t seem to be able to duplicate it in the lab either last we heard.

/Gustav


-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] För Radu-Adrian Feurdean
Skickat: den 27 maj 2017 11:31
Till: nanog@nanog.org
Ämne: Re: Cisco NCS5501 as a P Router

On Thu, May 18, 2017, at 15:21, Erik Sundberg wrote:
> We're at the growing point where we need a dedicated P router for a
> core device. We are taking a serious look at the NCS5501. Is there
> anyone else using a NCS5501 as P Router or just general feedback on
> the NCS5501 if you are using it?

Hi,

While we're not using the NCS5501, we do use the "previous version",
NCS5001. We're not yet at a point to care about the minuscule buffers.
Set-up : initially P-router in a very small BGP-free core (ISIS + LDP), then
added route-reflector functionality too.

As a P-router they usually behave correctly, except for the some cases where
they start routing incorrectly (according to Cisco, the wrong label is
programmed into hardware). That should have been fixed with 6.1.2, which we
have deployed, until we recently had the same issue on 6.1.2, on the exact
same box. We expect having some fun with the TAC about that.

> The big downside is it's only has a single processor

Yes, but:
 - it's powerful enough (we ended-up using them as RR too, and ~1.2M  routes
in RIB pose no problem)
 - ours being about half the price of a 5501, we have 2 of them on every
site. If you can afford the same (2 / site) do it; If you don't -  review
the copy so that you can (Brocade SLX 9540 looks like a good  alternative).

Re: Cisco NCS5501 as a P Router

[Radu-Adrian Feurdean]

Hi, 

We didn't test any of those features. My understandig was that they all
require extra licenses that would bring them "out of scope"
($$$-wise) and our need was for pure "P-routers"... actually being
technically unable to perform as PE was kind of hidden requirement :) 

On Sat, May 27, 2017, at 21:14, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Hi Radu-Adrian, have you done any MPLS PE functions on the NCS5001 ? 
> ...like MPLS/VPLS L2VPN, or L3VPN ?
> 
> I'm asking because I tried a NCS5001 in my lab about a year or 2 ago and
> it was pretty bad.  At which point I was told to only try it as a P box
> from a Cisco engineerat which point it dropped from my consideration
> since I needed to replace lots of Cisco ME3600's with mpls edge
> functions, and I ended up settling on the Juniper ACX5048.
> 
> I'm wondering if Cisco improved that NCS5001 in more recent versions of
> XR to included functional MPLS L2 and L3 vpn's.
> 
> -Aaron
> 
> 
> 

RE: Cisco NCS5501 as a P Router

[Aaron Gould]

Hi Radu-Adrian, have you done any MPLS PE functions on the NCS5001 ?  ...like 
MPLS/VPLS L2VPN, or L3VPN ?

I'm asking because I tried a NCS5001 in my lab about a year or 2 ago and it was 
pretty bad.  At which point I was told to only try it as a P box from a Cisco 
engineerat which point it dropped from my consideration since I needed to 
replace lots of Cisco ME3600's with mpls edge functions, and I ended up 
settling on the Juniper ACX5048.

I'm wondering if Cisco improved that NCS5001 in more recent versions of XR to 
included functional MPLS L2 and L3 vpn's.

-Aaron

Re: Cisco NCS5501 as a P Router

[Radu-Adrian Feurdean]

On Thu, May 18, 2017, at 15:21, Erik Sundberg wrote:
> We're at the growing point where we need a dedicated P router for a core
> device. We are taking a serious look at the NCS5501. Is there anyone else
> using a NCS5501 as P Router or just general feedback on the NCS5501 if
> you are using it?

Hi,

While we're not using the NCS5501, we do use the "previous version",
NCS5001. We're not yet at a point to care about the minuscule buffers.
Set-up : initially P-router in a very small BGP-free core (ISIS + LDP),
then added route-reflector functionality too. 

As a P-router they usually behave correctly, except for the some cases
where they start routing incorrectly (according to Cisco, the wrong
label is programmed into hardware). That should have been fixed with
6.1.2, which we have deployed, until we recently had the same issue on
6.1.2, on the exact same box. We expect having some fun with the TAC
about that.
 
> The big downside is it's only has a single processor

Yes, but:
 - it's powerful enough (we ended-up using them as RR too, and ~1.2M
 routes in RIB pose no problem)
 - ours being about half the price of a 5501, we have 2 of them on every
 site. If you can afford the same (2 / site) do it; If you don't -
 review the copy so that you can (Brocade SLX 9540 looks like a good
 alternative).

RE: Cisco NCS5501 as a P Router

[John van Oppen]

We were looking at them for the same role as well, P router makes a lot of 
sense in places where the network comes together (for us often ahead of CMTS 
boxes etc) but routing is still required due to many paths being available.
We are using juniper ACX5000s for this as well currently.  

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Saku Ytti
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 6:37 AM
To: Erik Sundberg <esundb...@nitelusa.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Cisco NCS5501 as a P Router

On 18 May 2017 at 16:21, Erik Sundberg <esundb...@nitelusa.com> wrote:

Hey,

> We're at the growing point where we need a dedicated P router for a core 
> device. We are taking a serious look at the NCS5501. Is there anyone else 
> using a NCS5501 as P Router or just general feedback on the NCS5501 if you 
> are using it?
>
> The big downside is it's only has a single processor

P would be the position I'd be most comfortable with NCS5501.
Particularly BGP free core and Internet-in-VRF. Single control-plane does not 
seem problematic, usually design should allow any single core node to be taken 
out of service without customer impact.

Please talk to your account team about roadmap, what features are coming in 
which release in next 3 years. And ask them what are their plans with this IP 
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/corporate-strategy-office/acquisitions/leaba.html

--
  ++ytti

Re: Cisco NCS5501 as a P Router

[Saku Ytti]

On 18 May 2017 at 16:21, Erik Sundberg  wrote:

Hey,

> We're at the growing point where we need a dedicated P router for a core 
> device. We are taking a serious look at the NCS5501. Is there anyone else 
> using a NCS5501 as P Router or just general feedback on the NCS5501 if you 
> are using it?
>
> The big downside is it's only has a single processor

P would be the position I'd be most comfortable with NCS5501.
Particularly BGP free core and Internet-in-VRF. Single control-plane
does not seem problematic, usually design should allow any single core
node to be taken out of service without customer impact.

Please talk to your account team about roadmap, what features are
coming in which release in next 3 years. And ask them what are their
plans with this IP
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/corporate-strategy-office/acquisitions/leaba.html

-- 
  ++ytti

RE: Cisco NCS5501 as a P Router

[michalis.bersimis]

Ι would be interested to use NCS5501 as a core or aggregation P router to 
aggregate smaller PE routers. Its low cost (compared to ASR9K) and the small 
features that one can need in order to run a P router it makes the platform 
attractive. 

I would like to hear other use case  (eg. Internet peering routers)

Best Regards,
Michalis Bersimis

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Erik Sundberg
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:22 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Cisco NCS5501 as a P Router

**This message triggered one or more security rules. Proceed with caution**

We're at the growing point where we need a dedicated P router for a core 
device. We are taking a serious look at the NCS5501. Is there anyone else using 
a NCS5501 as P Router or just general feedback on the NCS5501 if you are using 
it?

The big downside is it's only has a single processor

I Can't justify a ASR9K or NCS5500 Chassis yet.



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or 
previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information 
that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person 
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the 
information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY 
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the 
sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original 
transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank 
you.