I will not claim to be a expert on this platform.
But, from the CCW it looks like some cards can only be placed in slot 1-3
and others in 4-6.
So port density gets harder to calculate. Also, older cards are not
compatible with the new RSP. At least they can not be ordered in chassis
this way.
It
Regarding what replaces the ME3800
Was looking around the Cisco labyrinth and saw that the big RSP for the
ASR 903 has 144Mb buffers and relatively interesting possibilities
regarding interfaces.
Assuming feature parity this would be a nice upgrade. Not to bad price, but
some wierd limitation on
On 23/Apr/15 09:56, Mattias Gyllenvarg wrote:
Regarding what replaces the ME3800
Was looking around the Cisco labyrinth and saw that the big RSP for the
ASR 903 has 144Mb buffers and relatively interesting possibilities
regarding interfaces.
Assuming feature parity this would be a nice
Mattias Gyllenvarg
Sent: 23 April 2015 08:56
Regarding what replaces the ME3800
Was looking around the Cisco labyrinth and saw that the big RSP for the
ASR 903 has 144Mb buffers and relatively interesting possibilities
regarding interfaces.
Assuming feature parity this would be a nice
I've just resigned to the fact that there are some thing which will
never make it to the ME3600X/3800X, for reasons unknown. On the back of
the ASR920, I doubt much effort is going to be expended on the
ME3600X/3800X any longer.
We'd all do well to start deploying ASR920 in the coming
On 25 March 2015 at 22:49, CiscoNSP List cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com wrote:
On 3/24/2015 3:06 PM, James Bensley wrote:
Its 12MBs shared.
James.
Pardon my ignorance once again, but is this showstopper bad? The
me3800x appears to have 352MB, so clearly a lot more, but IIRC older
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark
Tinka
On 26/Mar/15 17:04, Eric Van Tol wrote:
I did quite a bit of testing in our lab prior to deployment, mainly to see
if there was feature parity with the ME3600. Configuration and
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
CiscoNSP List
Significant difference to the ME3600 (Which is 44Mb?) - Would like some
real-world feedback from anyones thats used these(ASR920s)any issues
with micro-bursts/drops?(You
On 26/Mar/15 17:04, Eric Van Tol wrote:
I did quite a bit of testing in our lab prior to deployment, mainly to see if there was
feature parity with the ME3600. Configuration and feature-wise, they were nearly
identical, at least with regard to what we provide or plan to provide. It did
On 26/Mar/15 17:41, Eric Van Tol wrote:
Only in the sense that an SVI on the ASR920 is a BDI.
I can live with that :-). The concept is still the same, just that SVI's
are replaced with BDI's.
I can imagine how hard it would have been to find this out on the back
of poor documentation.
On 3/24/2015 3:06 PM, James Bensley wrote:
Its 12MBs shared.
James.
Pardon my ignorance once again, but is this showstopper bad? The
me3800x appears to have 352MB, so clearly a lot more, but IIRC older
switches like the 3560 had something like 2MB per ASIC. I'm assuming one
I'm assuming one of the main reasons for buffers on a unit like this is
the speed disparity between 10ge and 1ge ports, unless you're planning
to do a lot of shaping (rather than policing) - is this correct?
Not sure if I understood what you meant exactly, but speed mismatch
and shaping both
On 3/24/2015 3:06 PM, James Bensley wrote:
Its 12MBs shared.
James.
Pardon my ignorance once again, but is this showstopper bad? The
me3800x appears to have 352MB, so clearly a lot more, but IIRC older
switches like the 3560 had something like 2MB per ASIC. I'm assuming one
of the main
03:54
To: mark.ti...@seacom.mu; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Ok - This really sparked my interest, as I have some POP's I need to get
some
ME's forspoke to our Cisco AM, got pricing(No haggling yet) on 3
options
ME3600
ME3800
ASR920
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: 24 March 2015 11:02
One option is to have multi-level IS-IS (which I don't like, but...) and leak
specifically between levels, if FIB slots are an issue with the 4-port. But I
won't decide on a design until I get my hands on the thing.
I
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: 24 March 2015 11:56
Agree, but remember every node you add into the IGP creates state; and
you want to run pw's all over the place, that states need to be held in FIB.
I wouldn't say l3vpn prefixes are the majority in most MPLS networks,
On 24/Mar/15 16:17, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Fair point I agree but hierarchy is not the way to go. We should not
be forced into troublesome topologies just because FIB space worth of
20k prefixes is considered to be enough for the access layer.
I can't argue with you there; I'm just
On 24/Mar/15 12:05, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
It would be great if Waris could chime in to shed some light on what
are the plans with ME platform.
On the back of a discussion I had a few years ago, it looks like
everything Metro-E is switching over to IOS XE. That means the
ME3600X/3800X don't
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: 24 March 2015 10:23
On 24/Mar/15 12:05, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
I'm quite horny for the 4-port ASR920. It's a viable option for a 2nd level of
rings which would typically be based on Layer 2 switches. Not having to deal
with Layer 2 issues
] On Behalf Of
CiscoNSP List
Sent: 24 March 2015 03:54
To: mark.ti...@seacom.mu; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Ok - This really sparked my interest, as I have some POP's I need to get some
ME's forspoke to our Cisco AM, got pricing(No haggling yet) on 3 options
On 24/Mar/15 12:55, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Yeah well the FIB prognoses doesn’t look good at the moment and I
don't see folks jumping from 20K to 128K.
One option is to have multi-level IS-IS (which I don't like, but...) and
leak specifically between levels, if FIB slots are an issue with
On 24/Mar/15 13:44, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
I would not go down that road, remember the discussion we had some
time ago where the consensus was that single level/area is soo much
better simpler and features friendly compared to hierarchical models.
And anyways the main FIB consumer are the
On 24 March 2015 at 08:23, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On 24/Mar/15 10:01, Gert Doering wrote:
Well, I can only guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if actually *making*
the MEs is way more expensive (due to 3rd party chipsets being used) than
the ASR920s (Cisco's own new and shiny
Cheers.
Someone also mentioned that the ASR920 had smaller buffers than the
ME3600anyone got the actual numbers(Or links...Ive googled(Ive also
asked our AM)), but can only find references stating deep buffers on the
ASR920
On 03/23/2015 09:53 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Would really like other people thoughts on the ASR920, and why Cisco are now
anti-ME (Well they certainly arent making them an attractive option v's the
ASR920) ??
Cheers.
I got this link back from the folks who quoted the asr920 for me. Looks
What are we hoping for / expecting from Cisco here?
I would like to see an ASR920 with extendend bufferspace to replace the
ME3600X. Mostly because the formfactor is superior.
Also, I am missing an 8xTe version of the ASR900.
Generally, I am pretty happy about the ASR900 line so far. It lacks
I have no machine in production yet so this is speculation.
But the ASR920 has less bufferspace then the ME3600x, this may be handled
by design if you utilize the extra Te interfaces in a clever way. Thought
it makes it hard to make a case for the ASR920 to replace the ME3800x,
Unless cisco
On 24/Mar/15 10:37, Mattias Gyllenvarg wrote:
I have no machine in production yet so this is speculation.
But the ASR920 has less bufferspace then the ME3600x, this may be
handled by design if you utilize the extra Te interfaces in a clever
way. Thought it makes it hard to make a case for
I have from my AMs CCIE that the chassie has a 12Mb shared buffer.
I am also pleased with the pricing, at least for MPLS purposes. Less
pleased with the SEK-USD exchange rate...
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:01 PM, CiscoNSP List cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I got this link back from the
I got this link back from the folks who quoted the asr920 for me. Looks
like Gert was correct - the pay as you grow model is in full effect.
I was expecting to have to turn on 10ge ports, but I'm surprised that in
many cases you have to grow into your 1ge ports as well.
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:53:55PM +1100, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Im really not following what Cisco are doing here? Are they not wanting to
sell ME's anymore?
Well, I can only guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if actually *making*
the MEs is way more expensive (due to 3rd party chipsets
On 24/Mar/15 10:01, Gert Doering wrote:
Well, I can only guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if actually *making*
the MEs is way more expensive (due to 3rd party chipsets being used) than
the ASR920s (Cisco's own new and shiny ASIC)...
I could be mis-remembering, but I think the ME3600X/3800X
On 24 March 2015 at 18:01, CiscoNSP List cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com wrote:
I got this link back from the folks who quoted the asr920 for me. Looks
like Gert was correct - the pay as you grow model is in full effect.
I was expecting to have to turn on 10ge ports, but I'm surprised that in
many
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 01:22:59PM -0600, Tim Densmore wrote:
how it's the upgrade path from an me3800x? I can see that they have
similar stats in some areas, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of
a router being the next step up from a switch, especially given that
we're looking
On 3/23/2015 3:27 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Yes, which I was stunned by as well - sub $10k for the asr, and $30k+
for the 3800, though that quote was several months old. I take it that
I should probably verify what I was quoted wasn't just a PSU or
something...
Umm - Im stunned as
On 3/18/2015 1:49 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 18/Mar/15 09:37, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Hi Guys,
Looking at both of these boxes to terminate 10Gb Aggs and a bunch of
either VRF or VPLS tails...3800X looks to support more VRF's(2000
instances) vs 128 on the ASR902...but we only need a 2 or 3, just a
On 23/Mar/15 21:22, Tim Densmore wrote:
Hi Mark,
I'm looking at the asr920s myself - can you give a little more info on
how it's the upgrade path from an me3800x? I can see that they have
similar stats in some areas, but I'm having a hard time with the idea
of a router being the next
On 23/Mar/15 23:59, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Thanks Mark - but Im still confused by this...why would Cisco release
an upgrade to the ME3600/ME3800 that is far cheaper? Devils always in
the detail, so what is the ASR920 missing vs the ME3800?
I'm going to get a few to test, but from what I
On 23/Mar/15 23:27, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Umm - Im stunned as well?...Mark/Anyone else...can you please confirm if this
is correct?
How can the upgrade to the ME3800 be cheaper(By 4X !) ?? This doesnt sound
like Cisco at all ;)
Is it missing some features the ME3800 has?
The ASR920
Yes, which I was stunned by as well - sub $10k for the asr, and $30k+
for the 3800, though that quote was several months old. I take it that
I should probably verify what I was quoted wasn't just a PSU or something...
Umm - Im stunned as well?...Mark/Anyone else...can you please confirm
On 23/Mar/15 23:27, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Umm - Im stunned as well?...Mark/Anyone else...can you please confirm if
this is correct?
How can the upgrade to the ME3800 be cheaper(By 4X !) ?? This doesnt
sound like Cisco at all ;)
Is it missing some features the ME3800 has?
Hi Tim - Are you saying the ASR920 is 4 times less than an ME3800??
Cheers.
Hi Mark,
I'm looking at the asr920s myself - can you give a little more info on
how it's the upgrade path from an me3800x? I can see that they have
similar stats in some areas, but I'm having a hard time with
Yes, which I was stunned by as well - sub $10k for the asr, and $30k+
for the 3800, though that quote was several months old. I take it that
I should probably verify what I was quoted wasn't just a PSU or something...
Tim Densmore
On 3/23/2015 3:10 PM, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Hi Tim - Are you
) ??
Cheers.
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X
To: cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
From: mark.ti...@seacom.mu
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:11:55 +0200
On 23/Mar/15 23:59, CiscoNSP List
wrote
On 19/Mar/15 10:09, Spyros Kakaroukas wrote:
Asr901 is a much different animal than 902/903 or 920. It probably is
the worst mpls box ( feature-wise ) that I've ever played with.
902/903 and 920 are completely different in that aspect. Also, IIRC,
it does not run XE like the rest.
That
On 19/Mar/15 12:40, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Hi,
I see so it's the same as MEs and RSP1/2 -A
It's a shame that Cisco decided that 20k is enough and that's it, if
you want more go buy ASR9000.
But I can sort of see their point cause fully loaded ASR903 is like a
mini me version of the big ASR
Asr901 is a much different animal than 902/903 or 920. It probably is the worst
mpls box ( feature-wise ) that I've ever played with. 902/903 and 920 are
completely different in that aspect. Also, IIRC, it does not run XE like the
rest.
On 18 Mar 2015 22:52, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu
that would be a
killer box.
adam
From: CiscoNSP List [mailto:cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com]
Sent: 19 March 2015 01:14
To: Adam Vitkovsky; mark.ti...@seacom.mu; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Hi Adam,
ASR920 numbers:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/routers/asr
On 19/Mar/15 15:25, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Amen to that.
I was looking at juniper MX104 as an alternative to ASR903 as there
are no stupid route scale restrictions and according to some posts you
can fit 890K paths and 500K prefixes in it just fine.
However it only has one RP.
And rLFA
recommended by Juniper for
production rollout).
So I guess I’m once again 2 years ahead of the HW with my requirements.
adam
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: 19 March 2015 10:47
To: Adam Vitkovsky; CiscoNSP List; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/Mar/15 09:57, Ulrik Ivers wrote:
Hi,
Yes, agree that the new ASR920 is the one you should be looking at.
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/datasheet-c78-733397.html
If you go with the ASR-920-24SZ-IM you can add a
On 18/Mar/15 10:32, Gregor Jeker wrote:
It does, at least if redundant uplinks are a requirement.
Well, an east-west ring takes care of that.
If you're going to build 4x diverse fibre paths, that will be expensive.
Similarly, if you have 2x diverse fibre paths that both go down, you
have
On Mar 18, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
What I want is an ASR920 with 40x or 48x ports, with 4x 10Gbps SFP+ uplinks,
all line rate.
Then how about an ASR9001?
--
Robert
inoc.net!rblayzor
http://inoc.net/
___
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs ME3800X
On 18/Mar/15 09:37, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Hi Guys,
Looking at both of these boxes to terminate 10Gb Aggs and a bunch of either
VRF or VPLS tails...3800X looks to support more VRF's(2000 instances) vs 128
on the ASR902...but we only need a 2 or 3, just
On 18/Mar/15 10:57, Gustav UHLANDER wrote:
Hello.
We have one ASR920 that we are playing with also.
It's a rather nice box we like the shallow depth but the CPU is pretty weak and
the software feels rather incomplete.
We would also like BGP advertised VPLS which we haven't been able to get
On 18/03/15 08:59, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
A 24-port unit with 4x 10Gbps uplinks makes no sense whatsoever.
It does, at least if redundant uplinks are a requirement. I had a ASR920
(24xSFP Version) in my hands recently, from tech perspective it really looks
great, even if the
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
What I want is an ASR920 with 40x or 48x ports, with 4x 10Gbps SFP+
uplinks, all line rate.
A 24-port unit with 4x 10Gbps uplinks makes no sense whatsoever.
Mark.
___
On 18/Mar/15 12:19, Robert Blayzor wrote:
Then how about an ASR9001?
Too big, too pricey.
Mark.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
On 18/Mar/15 14:17, Tim Durack wrote:
Throw in some PoE and you've got a very interesting box. It isn't just
the SP market that needs to eliminate STP :-)
They'll have to build a separate box for that, otherwise my price will
be unreasonably inflated :-).
Good to hear the enterprise
Thanks Mark - So where is the ASR902 positioned vs ME3800 + ASR920 ?
Obviously the 902 is chassis-based...so more flexibility with port choice(If
you need that)
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
From: mark.ti...@seacom.mu
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:49:00 +0200
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR902 vs
A 24-port unit with 4x 10Gbps uplinks makes no sense
whatsoever.
I can make sense when you have 1 or 2 customers that you
want to connect with 10Gbit (of course, you will have to think
about uplink bandwidth as well, but thats besides the point).
On Mar 18, 2015, at 12:50, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
I guess these boxes make sense in legacy RAN networks, where you may need a
mix-and-match of old interfaces that you can uplink into your MPLS core.
I suppose one could use them as an edge router where low-speed
On 18/Mar/15 22:47, quinn snyder wrote:
we’re seeing a larger uptake of these boxen in locations/customer
environments were migration from tdm/serial to ethernet is occurring.
think legacy monitoring systems wherein sonet/scada was used and
there is a requirement/desire to replace gear
Hi Guys,
Looking at both of these boxes to terminate 10Gb Aggs and a bunch of either VRF
or VPLS tails...3800X looks to support more VRF's(2000 instances) vs 128 on the
ASR902...but we only need a 2 or 3, just a heap of subints/vlan ints in the
same vrf, but the 902 looks to be able to give me
On 18/Mar/15 09:37, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Hi Guys,
Looking at both of these boxes to terminate 10Gb Aggs and a bunch of either VRF
or VPLS tails...3800X looks to support more VRF's(2000 instances) vs 128 on the
ASR902...but we only need a 2 or 3, just a heap of subints/vlan ints in the
same
] ASR902 vs ME3800X
Mark Tinka
Sent: 18 March 2015 08:00
What I want is an ASR920 with 40x or 48x ports, with 4x 10Gbps SFP+
uplinks, all line rate.
And what about ASR903
with 2x RSP2A (2x for redundancy you won't get with ASR920)
and 2x 2-Port 10GE XFP/SFP+ Module (2x
Mark Tinka
Sent: 18 March 2015 08:00
What I want is an ASR920 with 40x or 48x ports, with 4x 10Gbps SFP+
uplinks, all line rate.
And what about ASR903
with 2x RSP2A (2x for redundancy you won't get with ASR920)
and 2x 2-Port 10GE XFP/SFP+ Module (2x for redundancy you won't get with
On 19/Mar/15 03:14, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Hi Adam,
ASR920 numbers:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/routers/asr-920-series-aggregation-services-router/models-comparison.html
Cisco should have at least doubled these numbers for the ASR920, coming
from the ME3600X/3800X.
I know
On 19/Mar/15 02:26, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
And what about ASR903
Too big :-).
1U is the sweet spot for me.
Mark.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
On 18/Mar/15 19:31, Lukas Tribus wrote:
I can make sense when you have 1 or 2 customers that you
want to connect with 10Gbit (of course, you will have to think
about uplink bandwidth as well, but thats besides the point).
Which is Cisco's thinking.
The problem with that is I want to be in a
On 18/Mar/15 20:21, CiscoNSP List wrote:
Thanks Mark - So where is the ASR902 positioned vs ME3800 + ASR920 ?
Obviously the 902 is chassis-based...so more flexibility with port
choice(If you need that)
For me, the ASR902 and ASR903 are not interesting because we're a purely
Ethernet
71 matches
Mail list logo
