Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes
On 17/Jul/20 18:22, Phil Bedard wrote: > The MX960 obviously came out a long time ago. There have been new chassis > versions for it as well as the PTX5K to support higher bandwidth speeds but > it was always called the same thing and backwards compatible. Indeed. But we are likely 2 chassis revisions behind on the current shipping MX platforms, and we are still happy, even with newer line cards, fabrics, and so on. Of course, you do get a point where you ultimately need to change a chassis to go past a certain performance threshold, but the degree of oscillation on the MX side, as a function of how much you need to "give up" to get there, is not as bad. I suspect the ASR9000 is not far off from the MX in that regard, but like I said, if I had to choose one of them for my core, the MX would have won that easily. > Can't argue with the NCS 6K, IMHO it was really forced by some large > providers who required a multi-chassis evolution beyond CRS, and that > continues to be its main role. But very few really want to continue with > multi-chassis at this point as router capacity has increased rapidly from > where it was even a few years ago. There was the ME2600X. There was the ASR14000. There was the ME4600. There was the CRS LSR line card. I could go on... plenty of situations we've found ourselves in where we can't bank on a promise that Cisco have made. > TBH the 8k is probably not a very good fit for your network today. Not sure > if it's super public but Cisco does have the ASR 9903. It's 3RU, 600mm > depth, 3.6Tb FD. It's 16x100G+20x10G fixed, and then a single 800G or 2T > expansion card. Yes, heard about this one. Still not as dense as we can get from the PTX1000 or PTX10002. But again with my broken record, we are done with this crew :-). Mark. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes
The MX960 obviously came out a long time ago. There have been new chassis versions for it as well as the PTX5K to support higher bandwidth speeds but it was always called the same thing and backwards compatible. Can't argue with the NCS 6K, IMHO it was really forced by some large providers who required a multi-chassis evolution beyond CRS, and that continues to be its main role. But very few really want to continue with multi-chassis at this point as router capacity has increased rapidly from where it was even a few years ago. Obviously Cisco has the ASR 99XX series, but there are a lot of 9006s and 9010s that have been in networks for 10+ years at this point. You can use the latest line cards with 400G QSFP-DD ports in a 9006/9010 chassis that came out in 2007? Obviously with commons upgrades like switch fabrics and fans to get the most out of it. TBH the 8k is probably not a very good fit for your network today. Not sure if it's super public but Cisco does have the ASR 9903. It's 3RU, 600mm depth, 3.6Tb FD. It's 16x100G+20x10G fixed, and then a single 800G or 2T expansion card. Thanks, Phil On 7/17/20, 3:32 AM, "Mark Tinka" wrote: On 17/Jul/20 00:53, Phil Bedard wrote: > Fair enough. Every vendor has gone through their own pain with the older midplane systems in having to swap out chassis multiple times to get to higher speeds. Thankfully with the newer fabric designs we've eliminated most of that. Well, we started off with the MX480 back in 2014, and save for the most recent purchases in the last year, we are still running a ton of the actual chassis' from 2014. We did buy them with the high capacity fan trays back then, and the 264VAC power supplies too, so those haven't changed. What has changed, in PoP's where we've needed to add MPC7E line cards for low-scale 100Gbps use-cases, is the SCB. We started off with the SCBE in 2014, and have that in most of the boxes that don't need the MPC7E's. On the units with the MPC7E's, we just upgraded the SCBE's to the SCBE2's. The MX480 RE-S-1800x4 control planes from 2014 are still running just fine. In fact, we still buy that RE for all new MX480 deployments, today. I'm not sure how much enhancement you'd need to make to an ASR9006 or ASR9010 to keep it running 7+ years on. We only ever deployed the ASR9001, which is still humming along as long as you don't use it as a very busy peering router :-). Also in 2014, we bought the CRS-B chassis, which was the one built to support between 400Gbps - 800Gbps per slot. Cisco decided to cap it off at 400Gbps/slot when they moved on with the NCS 6000, even though they did tell us that it has the potential to do 800Gbps with no issue. We started it off as a CRS-3 (140Gbps/slot), and most of our PoP's still run it in that configuration. For the PoP's where we need 100Gbps support, we upgraded them to the CRS-X (so a new 400Gbps fabric and slot-specific FP-X's). The good news is that the CRS-X is backward compatible with CRS-3 (and CRS-1) line cards, so that mix works well for us, since the PoP's where we need 100Gbps ports also still run 10Gbps ports in CRS-3 line cards. We still have the same RP's in our CRS routers from 2014 (1.73GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon, 12GB RAM, 2x 32GB SSD drives). Solid control planes, those. So for me, Cisco not EoL'ing or EoS'ing the CRS-X (or its line cards), but still "nudging" you away from it is simply bad form. We still have anywhere from 4 - 6 slots free on each of these routers (so 8 - 12 per PoP), so the room for growth is plenty, and there is no way I'm going to put my refresh in Cisco's hands after this behaviour from them. We saw what happened with a bunch of other boxes that came out, and then simply disappeared - the NCS 6000 being the most recent. So I have no confidence that someone at Cisco will some day get bored and decide that the 8000 platform was not the right approach. No confidence at all! And I told our AM's the exact same thing a few weeks ago, when they asked why they were not being considered for our core refresh any longer. I hope they learned something, but it's hard to teach the 500-pound gorilla in the room new tricks, so... > Sorry was thinking 400GE to 100GE breakout. You can certainly do 4x10GE breakouts on the various 8000s boxes and line cards. We've decided not to continue running our core routers on chassis-based platforms. The current state-of-the-art suggests that you can get quite a lot of density, performance and reliability from fixed form factor core routers, even for multi-100Gbps applications. Less space, less power, fewer things to spare, fewer things to fail, quick and easy installations/de-installations... what's not to love? So as we get rid of our CRS's, only fixed form
Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes
On 17/Jul/20 08:17, Gert Doering wrote: > But that's actually one of the things that alienates the "not megacarrier" > customers. There's perfectly working routers, they fall out of love, > new features are not added anymore, and you're expected to buy 32x400G > things when all you need are like "16x 10G". I think the MX has shown how this can be done, reasonably well, and still continue to be the pick of the field. The MX104 was the only time I can fault Juniper, but otherwise, what they've done with the MX is nothing short of exemplary. I have no doubt the MX480's I bought in 2014 will still be with us for another 6 years, at least. Which is why I have no problem investing in the MX10003 for dedicated 100Gbps edge customers. Fancy slides and coining catchy terms is no longer a path into our network. Service provider networks are not that complicated, or complex. Get back to your roots, and let's not make it a whole song & dance Mark. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes
On 17/Jul/20 00:53, Phil Bedard wrote: > Fair enough. Every vendor has gone through their own pain with the older > midplane systems in having to swap out chassis multiple times to get to > higher speeds. Thankfully with the newer fabric designs we've eliminated most > of that. Well, we started off with the MX480 back in 2014, and save for the most recent purchases in the last year, we are still running a ton of the actual chassis' from 2014. We did buy them with the high capacity fan trays back then, and the 264VAC power supplies too, so those haven't changed. What has changed, in PoP's where we've needed to add MPC7E line cards for low-scale 100Gbps use-cases, is the SCB. We started off with the SCBE in 2014, and have that in most of the boxes that don't need the MPC7E's. On the units with the MPC7E's, we just upgraded the SCBE's to the SCBE2's. The MX480 RE-S-1800x4 control planes from 2014 are still running just fine. In fact, we still buy that RE for all new MX480 deployments, today. I'm not sure how much enhancement you'd need to make to an ASR9006 or ASR9010 to keep it running 7+ years on. We only ever deployed the ASR9001, which is still humming along as long as you don't use it as a very busy peering router :-). Also in 2014, we bought the CRS-B chassis, which was the one built to support between 400Gbps - 800Gbps per slot. Cisco decided to cap it off at 400Gbps/slot when they moved on with the NCS 6000, even though they did tell us that it has the potential to do 800Gbps with no issue. We started it off as a CRS-3 (140Gbps/slot), and most of our PoP's still run it in that configuration. For the PoP's where we need 100Gbps support, we upgraded them to the CRS-X (so a new 400Gbps fabric and slot-specific FP-X's). The good news is that the CRS-X is backward compatible with CRS-3 (and CRS-1) line cards, so that mix works well for us, since the PoP's where we need 100Gbps ports also still run 10Gbps ports in CRS-3 line cards. We still have the same RP's in our CRS routers from 2014 (1.73GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon, 12GB RAM, 2x 32GB SSD drives). Solid control planes, those. So for me, Cisco not EoL'ing or EoS'ing the CRS-X (or its line cards), but still "nudging" you away from it is simply bad form. We still have anywhere from 4 - 6 slots free on each of these routers (so 8 - 12 per PoP), so the room for growth is plenty, and there is no way I'm going to put my refresh in Cisco's hands after this behaviour from them. We saw what happened with a bunch of other boxes that came out, and then simply disappeared - the NCS 6000 being the most recent. So I have no confidence that someone at Cisco will some day get bored and decide that the 8000 platform was not the right approach. No confidence at all! And I told our AM's the exact same thing a few weeks ago, when they asked why they were not being considered for our core refresh any longer. I hope they learned something, but it's hard to teach the 500-pound gorilla in the room new tricks, so... > Sorry was thinking 400GE to 100GE breakout. You can certainly do 4x10GE > breakouts on the various 8000s boxes and line cards. We've decided not to continue running our core routers on chassis-based platforms. The current state-of-the-art suggests that you can get quite a lot of density, performance and reliability from fixed form factor core routers, even for multi-100Gbps applications. Less space, less power, fewer things to spare, fewer things to fail, quick and easy installations/de-installations... what's not to love? So as we get rid of our CRS's, only fixed form factor options are going in. The PTX1000 is looking very good, but we are also looking at Nokia's new SR-1. The SR-1 can be ordered either as a fixed or modular chassis, and consumes 3U of rack space. Exciting times. Mark. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Cisco N540-ACC-SYS ipv4 routes
Hi, On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 06:53:49PM -0400, Phil Bedard wrote: > >The CRS made a lot of sense because we had a need for plenty of > >non-Ethernet links, and both the MX and ASR9000 were too expensive on a > >per-slot basis. > > Fair enough. Every vendor has gone through their own pain with > the older midplane systems in having to swap out chassis multiple > times to get to higher speeds. Thankfully with the newer fabric > designs we've eliminated most of that. But that's actually one of the things that alienates the "not megacarrier" customers. There's perfectly working routers, they fall out of love, new features are not added anymore, and you're expected to buy 32x400G things when all you need are like "16x 10G". gert -- "If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor." Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
