Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 4/Aug/17 22:46, Łukasz Bromirski wrote: > Yes, that’s correct. > > The fastest RP in fixed builds is in 1002HX, however it will be still > slower than what you should expect from RP3. > > Additionally, RP3 offers four times more RAM than any other RP on > ASR 1000 - 64GB vs 16GB in RP2 and

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

Hi, On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 07:11:06PM +, Erik Sundberg wrote: > Cisco is coming out with a ASR9901 with in the next couple months, not sure > on the release date. I have seen a couple of slides on it. > > 2U [..] > 1200w power usage Not sure I should find that impressive or scary...

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

Mark, > On 4 Aug 2017, at 10:43, Mark Tinka wrote: > > On 4/Aug/17 00:52, Łukasz Bromirski wrote: >> >> - the ‘HX’ series currently consist only of 1001HX and 1002HX, so both >> fixed platforms with some modularity included; there are no HX fully >> modular chassis, so my

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 3:43 AM To: Łukasz Bromirski Cc: Cisco Network Service Providers Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables? On 4/Aug/17 00:52, Łukasz Bromirski wrote

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 4/Aug/17 00:52, Łukasz Bromirski wrote: > > - the ‘HX’ series currently consist only of 1001HX and 1002HX, so both > fixed platforms with some modularity included; there are no HX fully > modular chassis, so my comment above was misleading in terms of > 1001HX/1002HX supporting RP3 - they

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 3/Aug/17 20:22, Tim Densmore wrote: > Yeah, this is definitely a piece of the puzzle for some of us. So, > discussion about the differences between the various RPs aside, what's > the real world experience with the asr100x and the 9001? It sounds like > BGP convergence is better on the

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

Mark, > On 3 Aug 2017, at 10:39, Mark Tinka wrote: >> ‘HX’ versions are current-gen, newest boxes, that can use >> RP3 and up to 64GB of RAM. For fixed options there are 1001HX and 1002HX >> as of now and they scale up to 16GB of physical RAM (1001HX) >> and 32GB of

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

Hi, > Am 03.08.2017 um 23:58 schrieb Łukasz Bromirski : > For that kind of scenario, Sup720-10GE can still do it’s job if > You use Selective Route Download. You don’t need full tables as > Spotify’s SIR project have shown. You’re even better than Spotify, > as You’re end

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

>> On 3 Aug 2017, at 09:10, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: >> >> The use case is simply "full tables BGP" with currently 4x 1GB/s >> uplinks and possibly 6 in the near future. Upgrade to something >> 10G-ish not planned at the moment. 300-400 Mbit/s aggregate >> traffic across all

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

> On 3 Aug 2017, at 09:10, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > > The use case is simply "full tables BGP" with currently 4x 1GB/s > uplinks and possibly 6 in the near future. Upgrade to something > 10G-ish not planned at the moment. 300-400 Mbit/s aggregate > traffic across all uplinks

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 8/3/2017 1:10 AM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > The 9001 would probably cost us 3 to 4 times as much per > box as the 1001-X. Yeah, this is definitely a piece of the puzzle for some of us. So, discussion about the differences between the various RPs aside, what's the real world experience with

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:58:48AM +0100, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Again, MX104 is/was competing with ASR903 or ASR902. > Seems line everyone forgot about the ASR903? Such a good work horse. > FWIW, we tried rolling out ASR903 w/ RSP3 and it ended up being a total complete

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 3/Aug/17 09:58, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Again, MX104 is/was competing with ASR903 or ASR902. Could have been, but it also finds itself competing with the ASR1000. Juniper just don't have anything else in their arsenal at the moment, for this range of kit. > Seems line

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 3/Aug/17 08:40, Łukasz Bromirski wrote: > Couple clarifications. Many thanks, Lukasz! > > ‘HX’ versions are current-gen, newest boxes, that can use > RP3 and up to 64GB of RAM. For fixed options there are 1001HX and 1002HX > as of now and they scale up to 16GB of physical RAM (1001HX) >

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

> Mark Tinka > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 12:44 PM > > Juniper have no choice but to keep the MX80 and MX104 as an ASR1000 > competitor. None of the M-series boxes are ideal for that. If they don't > revamp this particular line, Cisco will continue to overtake them in that area. > Again,

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

> Saku Ytti > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 12:32 PM > > MX104 is 1GE optimised SP router, there is no such device available or in the > pipeline from JNPR, CSCO, NOK . > What about ASR903? They even look like twins :) Sure with RSP3 ASR903 moved into the 100GE game but the old ones -same

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

Hi! > As for comparisions - 1001/1002/1002F are no longer in game, > and while they perform decently for control plane, even first gen ASR 9k’s > (like 9001/9001S and RP1s for 9006/9010) will beat them unless you > go for RR role in a specific config (SRD) - as Ytti mentioned, BGP on > 32 bit

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

> as a point of correction — iirc — asr1002x is running closer to an rp2. > i don’t have one available to me at the moment, but i believe the code > indicates as such.  comparing the ram, route, etc numbers leads me to > believe this is true. Agreed, the RP1 is a 32 bit platform and can only use

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

> based on what i???m reading ??? the asr1002hx is closer to an rp3-based > platform, again ??? comparing the numbers. i could be wrong on this. > ASR 1002-HX has quad-core 2.5 Ghz, I'd say it is architecturally more closer to RP3. RP3 has quad-core 2.2Ghz. The slightly higher clock speed

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 2/Aug/17 21:33, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > Yet I still have > to find a document stating that explicitly. The joys of our vendors... Mark. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

Hi, > Am 02.08.2017 um 21:24 schrieb Mark Tinka : > On 2/Aug/17 19:07, quinn snyder wrote: >> as a point of correction — iirc — asr1002x is running closer to an rp2. i >> don’t have one available to me at the moment, but i believe the code >> indicates as such. comparing

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 2/Aug/17 19:07, quinn snyder wrote: > as a point of correction — iirc — asr1002x is running closer to an rp2. i > don’t have one available to me at the moment, but i believe the code > indicates as such. comparing the ram, route, etc numbers leads me to believe > this is true. > > based

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

> On 2Aug, 2017, at 03:24, Mark Tinka wrote: > > On 2/Aug/17 12:10, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > >> So, any remarks about the 1002? > > It depends; there are different ASR1002's. > > The ASR1002-X and the ASR1002-HX. > > The ASR1002-X is older, and runs the RP1, which is

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

Hi, all, > Am 02.08.2017 um 12:24 schrieb Mark Tinka : > It depends; there are different ASR1002's. > > The ASR1002-X and the ASR1002-HX. > > The ASR1002-X is older, and runs the RP1, which is the slower one. We use > them for a bit of peering, and it's not bad -

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 2/Aug/17 13:38, Saku Ytti wrote: > This would surprise me very much. I see MX80/MX104 as ASR9001 > competitor. If JNPR thought they were competing with ASR1k, they are > extremely confused. ASR1k does NAPT, statefull firewall, encryption > etc. Juniper really doesn't have ASR1k competitor,

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 2 August 2017 at 14:34, Mark Tinka wrote: > The box was designed to compete with the ASR1000, which offers Ethernet > + non-Ethernet versatility. This would surprise me very much. I see MX80/MX104 as ASR9001 competitor. If JNPR thought they were competing with ASR1k,

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 2/Aug/17 13:31, Saku Ytti wrote: > Debatable. It's coming, and it's designation is not very far from MX104 :-)... > MX104 is 1GE optimised SP router, there is no such device available or > in the pipeline from JNPR, CSCO, NOK . Not only 1Gbps-optimized, but also non-Ethernet optimized.

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 2 August 2017 at 13:24, Bill Woodcock wrote: > The NCS5501 looks like it’ll be great for medium-to-high throughput but > low-complexity sites, particularly when paired with a Nexus 92300YC or > 93180YC-EX switch. If the memory limitations don’t prove to be too >

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 2/Aug/17 13:26, Gert Doering wrote: > In which regards? BGP convergence, general stuff, or "just the filesystem > annoyance"? Curious, because I haven't seen anything as fast for BGP as > the ASR9k yet ("session up to full table loaded" in less than 45 seconds), > but I have no experience

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 2 August 2017 at 13:05, Mark Tinka wrote: > Juniper are working on a new MX unit, Intel-based, as an upgrade to the > MX104. So anyone who was holding out for a sane RE on the MX104 can > start breathing now. Debatable. MX104 is 1GE optimised SP router, there is no

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

Hi, On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:10:42PM +0200, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > ASR 9006 OTOH are rather cheap for their capabilities he claims - but > definitely 9006 is "big, clunky, and you need to be careful which generation line cards you get" - I wouldn't go there unless you have studied RP/LC

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

Hi, On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:05:36PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > I also find the ASR9001 a lot slower than the ASR1000 (RP2). In which regards? BGP convergence, general stuff, or "just the filesystem annoyance"? Curious, because I haven't seen anything as fast for BGP as the ASR9k yet

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 02/08/17 13:10, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > Hi all, > > >> Am 02.08.2017 um 12:05 schrieb Mark Tinka : >> On 2/Aug/17 11:58, Gert Doering wrote: >>> This is what we currently do for "BGP edge", and I totally love the >>> box. Even though software updates are as annoying,

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

> On Aug 2, 2017, at 3:10 AM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > My preferred supplier just called in telling me that ASR 9001 are way more > expensive > currently than, say, ASR 1002 with RP2. I'll get a quote later today. > ASR 9006 OTOH are rather cheap for their capabilities he

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 2/Aug/17 12:10, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > So, any remarks about the 1002? It depends; there are different ASR1002's. The ASR1002-X and the ASR1002-HX. The ASR1002-X is older, and runs the RP1, which is the slower one. We use them for a bit of peering, and it's not bad - certainly better

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

Hi all, > Am 02.08.2017 um 12:05 schrieb Mark Tinka : > On 2/Aug/17 11:58, Gert Doering wrote: >> This is what we currently do for "BGP edge", and I totally love the >> box. Even though software updates are as annoying, mostly because the >> flash disk is so slw so

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

On 2/Aug/17 11:58, Gert Doering wrote: > This is what we currently do for "BGP edge", and I totally love the > box. Even though software updates are as annoying, mostly because the > flash disk is so slw so the fairly complex processes take ages, > and then a bit. Indeed. I also

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 1k vs 9k as a non-transit BGP router with full tables?

Hi, On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:54:13AM +0200, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: > ASR 9001 looks like a candidate, 4x 10GE and one > 20x 1GE line card are definitely sufficient for the > foreseeable future. This is what we currently do for "BGP edge", and I totally love the box. Even though software