[180029] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Low Cost 10G Router
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Wed May 20 02:01:25 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu>, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 07:59:04 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CALFTrnP=j=n0MdxwaCz3mrYp687jdrogbCHzcFxKjN8G+bHWsw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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.
