Mailing List Archive: Cisco: NSP

ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL)

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

spank_daddy at live

Nov 23, 2009, 1:20 PM

Post #1 of 38 (2150 views)
Permalink

ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL)

I am building out a new datacenter. The edge is going to consist of 2 routers. Each device has a 10G interface connected to a different provider with a 1-2G commit. I think comparing price and throughput, I be better off using 7606/RSP720-3CXL/WS-X6708-10GE vs ASR1004 with 10G-SRs(that cisco rep promises will be supported in code rev before end of year). For some reason Cisco guys seems to be pushing the ASR. I'd love to go with it to learn something new but 1004 is limited to 20GB throughput while the 7606 should be able to handle in the hundreds if we should ever need it.

I read through the archives of the list and people have some strong opinions against the 7606, especially regarding netflow exports, but maybe that was related to SUP720 issues. I don not plan to offer and services at the edge of my network.

Can anyone offer some opinions based on their experience?

Thanks,
Joel

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mtinka at globaltransit

Nov 23, 2009, 4:58 PM

Post #2 of 38 (2080 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On Tuesday 24 November 2009 05:20:17 am loui leaky wrote:

> I read through the archives of the list and people have
> some strong opinions against the 7606, especially
> regarding netflow exports, but maybe that was related to
> SUP720 issues. I don not plan to offer and services at
> the edge of my network.

Our only concern with the current EARL in the RSP720 and
SUP720 is that it has a number of feature limitations that
we've become accustomed to on the 7200 platform, but are
supported on the ESP on the ASR1000 platform.

Hopefully, the next EARL will resolve these issues, but who
knows what other limitations it may have, when they may be
resolved, or if support will come both to the 6500 and 7600,
or just one of these?

Suffice it to say, the ASR1000 provides some decent support
for non-Ethernet interfaces as well, without the need to
purchase extra SIP modules that you'd need in a 7600, should
you require such interfaces in there.

Just our view.

Cheers,

Mark.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.82 KB)

lists at memetic

Nov 24, 2009, 12:37 PM

Post #3 of 38 (2074 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

loui leaky wrote:
> I am building out a new datacenter. The edge is going to consist of 2 routers. Each device has a 10G interface connected to a different provider with a 1-2G commit. I think comparing price and throughput, I be better off using 7606/RSP720-3CXL/WS-X6708-10GE vs ASR1004 with 10G-SRs(that cisco rep promises will be supported in code rev before end of year). For some reason Cisco guys seems to be pushing the ASR. I'd love to go with it to learn something new but 1004 is limited to 20GB throughput while the 7606 should be able to handle in the hundreds if we should ever need it.
>
> I read through the archives of the list and people have some strong opinions against the 7606, especially regarding netflow exports, but maybe that was related to SUP720 issues. I don not plan to offer and services at the edge of my network.
These are very, very, very different devices, almost incomparable. The
7600 is a switch which does layer 3, the ASR is the successor to the
7200, that is, a software router. If you need features the 7600 doesn't
have, you want an ASR. If you potentially need more throughput than the
ASR can handle, you want the 7600.

For your use, sounds like you want a 7600, as you have no idea what the
differences are, and are therefore unlikely to run into any of them. :)

Cisco are pushing the ASR just like they pushed all of the other 'new'
hardware. It's what they do, they sell things. Don't take advice on what
to buy from the people who are selling it to you.

adam.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

sethm at rollernet

Nov 24, 2009, 1:46 PM

Post #4 of 38 (2069 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

Adam Armstrong wrote:
> These are very, very, very different devices, almost incomparable. The
> 7600 is a switch which does layer 3, the ASR is the successor to the
> 7200, that is, a software router. If you need features the 7600 doesn't
> have, you want an ASR. If you potentially need more throughput than the
> ASR can handle, you want the 7600.
>

The ASR1k has a TCAM.

~Seth
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

gert at greenie

Nov 24, 2009, 11:42 PM

Post #5 of 38 (2057 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:58:27AM +0800, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Hopefully, the next EARL will resolve these issues, but who
> knows what other limitations it may have, when they may be
> resolved, or if support will come both to the 6500 and 7600,
> or just one of these?

We might see a "Cisco 8200" appear, which is the same as 6500 and 7600,
but with a different EEPROM and yet another chassis colour. Supported
by a new BU, and all the new and fancy supervisor boards will only
support the 8200 (and the 6500, but only if you upgrade the fan module
to a FAN-5 and install 15000W PSUs). Another round of fun begins.

Yes, this is going to be interesting.

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net

lukasz at bromirski

Nov 25, 2009, 11:46 AM

Post #6 of 38 (2046 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On 2009-11-25 08:42, Gert Doering wrote:

> We might see a "Cisco 8200" appear, which is the same as 6500 and 7600,
> but with a different EEPROM and yet another chassis colour. Supported
> by a new BU, and all the new and fancy supervisor boards will only
> support the 8200 (and the 6500, but only if you upgrade the fan module
> to a FAN-5 and install 15000W PSUs). Another round of fun begins.

:)

The new EARL - EARL8 is already there - as the PFC for Nexus 7k. It will
also be the part of next-gen Sup "2T" and DFCs for LCs in the 6500E.
It has a new features (they were listed already on this list a couple
of times, never complete, but usually focusing on the main advantages),
and removes a couple of long-standing limitations. The most important
fact (besides scalability extensions) is it will bring a native VPLS
and MPLS support for newer and completely new LCs to the 6500E.

As for something for the next-gen - 8200... competitors would like 6500
to be dead soon, because after all those rants it still wins the deals,
it is still a platform of choice for technical not marketing reasons,
and it still, after so many years, excels in different dimensions
It is roadmapped far into the future, and there's place for it.

OMG, that sounded like.... marketing! :D

--
"Everything will be okay in the end. | �ukasz Bromirski
If it's not okay, it's not the end. | http://lukasz.bromirski.net
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

gert at greenie

Nov 25, 2009, 12:22 PM

Post #7 of 38 (2044 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 08:46:37PM +0100, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
> The new EARL - EARL8 is already there - as the PFC for Nexus 7k. It will
> also be the part of next-gen Sup "2T" and DFCs for LCs in the 6500E.

Ah, so it will come to 6500, not to 7600. Heh!

(I wonder what IOS train will support it, and what hardware and feature
support we're going to lose by using that IOS train...)

[..]
> As for something for the next-gen - 8200... competitors would like 6500
> to be dead soon, because after all those rants it still wins the deals,
> it is still a platform of choice for technical not marketing reasons,
> and it still, after so many years, excels in different dimensions
> It is roadmapped far into the future, and there's place for it.

I *really* like the 6500. Really.

<rant>
The only think I massively dislike about it is the pain that Cisco
instills in the customers with their poor choice in decision-making.

- 6500/7600 split. They ("the 7600 camp") get the fast CPU, we get the
reasonable 10G linecards (and got the 10G sup first).

- confusing strategy regarding IOS future, especially modular IOS vs. NX-OS

- confusing feature adoption between SX, SR and "main line" IOS

- removal of BFD on SVI!!! *grumble* (this has bitten me *again* today)

- as a customer, you really can't trust Cisco to make reasonable
decisions (did I mention the BU split? and IOS and hardware support
pain?) - even Cisco's stock price sucks, so the usual argument "but
it was good for the stock price!" doesn't hold either.
</rant>

Sorry for that.

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net

lukasz at bromirski

Nov 25, 2009, 12:30 PM

Post #8 of 38 (2046 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On 2009-11-25 21:22, Gert Doering wrote:

> - 6500/7600 split. They ("the 7600 camp") get the fast CPU, we get the
> reasonable 10G linecards (and got the 10G sup first).

Yeah. We all live in a material world. But the CPU on the MSFC4 on
Sup2T will be fast.

> - confusing strategy regarding IOS future, especially modular IOS vs. NX-OS

Modular IOS is a way to go on the 6500. NX-OS is for Nexus only.

> - confusing feature adoption between SX, SR and "main line" IOS

SX = 6500, SR = 7600, 7200, couple of other lines. Main line is usually
for access boxes, like ISRs and ISRs G2.

> - removal of BFD on SVI!!! *grumble* (this has bitten me *again* today)

Tim and Scott and a couple of people are looking at the list. I think
they heard your scream.

> - as a customer, you really can't trust Cisco to make reasonable
> decisions (did I mention the BU split? and IOS and hardware support
> pain?) - even Cisco's stock price sucks, so the usual argument "but
> it was good for the stock price!" doesn't hold either.

Hm. Usually price issues are taken care of by account teams. I can't
speak about that part.

--
"Everything will be okay in the end. | �ukasz Bromirski
If it's not okay, it's not the end. | http://lukasz.bromirski.net
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

gert at greenie

Nov 25, 2009, 12:51 PM

Post #9 of 38 (2045 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:30:23PM +0100, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
> On 2009-11-25 21:22, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> > - 6500/7600 split. They ("the 7600 camp") get the fast CPU, we get the
> > reasonable 10G linecards (and got the 10G sup first).
>
> Yeah. We all live in a material world. But the CPU on the MSFC4 on
> Sup2T will be fast.

I'm sure it can beat the CPU in my Nokia 6310i. By a small margin.

> > - confusing strategy regarding IOS future, especially modular IOS vs.
> > NX-OS
>
> Modular IOS is a way to go on the 6500. NX-OS is for Nexus only.

Exactly the point. Too many OS variants. As if IOS didn't have enough
branches already.

> > - confusing feature adoption between SX, SR and "main line" IOS
>
> SX = 6500, SR = 7600, 7200, couple of other lines. Main line is usually
> for access boxes, like ISRs and ISRs G2.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that, and while I can see some short-term value
in the reasons that have been given, the long-term evaluation is "pain
for customers, and pain for Cisco" ("development resources fragmented
away until only a single person remains to supervise the nightly builds").

Think of upgrading your gear from 7200 to 7600. Or from 7600 to GSR.

You get highly different operating systems, even if it's still called
"IOS", with vastly different feature sets. Some parts will have to be
different, of course (like "there is no hardware CEF on 7200") - but things
like "BFD on interface type X works on 7200, but not on 7600" or "IPv6 on
port-channels do not work in GSR" is just madness.

> > - removal of BFD on SVI!!! *grumble* (this has bitten me *again* today)
>
> Tim and Scott and a couple of people are looking at the list. I think
> they heard your scream.

I'm not sure. This hasn't been brought up for the first time, and it's
not only me, and lots of people have been nagging their account managers
about it, but still no word from Cisco on whether we can expect it to
show up again, and if yes, where... (SRZ?).

> > - as a customer, you really can't trust Cisco to make reasonable
> > decisions (did I mention the BU split? and IOS and hardware support
> > pain?) - even Cisco's stock price sucks, so the usual argument "but
> > it was good for the stock price!" doesn't hold either.
>
> Hm. Usually price issues are taken care of by account teams. I can't
> speak about that part.

"stock price" as in "wall street, pin-striped banking guys" :-)

They tend to honour stupid decisions if they look good in the financial
papers.

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net

jared at puck

Nov 25, 2009, 1:11 PM

Post #10 of 38 (2044 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

>>>
>>> - as a customer, you really can't trust Cisco to make reasonable
>>> decisions (did I mention the BU split? and IOS and hardware support
>>> pain?) - even Cisco's stock price sucks, so the usual argument "but
>>> it was good for the stock price!" doesn't hold either.
>>
>> Hm. Usually price issues are taken care of by account teams. I can't
>> speak about that part.
>
> "stock price" as in "wall street, pin-striped banking guys" :-)
>
> They tend to honour stupid decisions if they look good in the financial
> papers.

I actually believe this harms cisco greatly. You should see my account team ready to pull their hair out some days because of the self-inflicted-pain internally and lack of coherent direction. I honestly now see why they acquired linksys, it's about building cheap crap they don't intend to actually properly support and maintain. It's sad because there are a lot of really bright people there who try to do the right thing and will never succeed.

Cisco is an enterprise play, not a SP play. Think IBM before they divested numerous business lines (eg hdd mfg to hitachi, laptops to lenovo). I'm waiting to see them realize they are doing more harm than good and follow that playbook.

- Jared
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

david at hughes

Nov 25, 2009, 3:32 PM

Post #11 of 38 (2041 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On 26/11/2009, at 5:46 AM, Łukasz Bromirski wrote:

> As for something for the next-gen - 8200... competitors would like 6500
> to be dead soon, because after all those rants it still wins the deals,
> it is still a platform of choice for technical not marketing reasons,
> and it still, after so many years, excels in different dimensions
> It is roadmapped far into the future, and there's place for it.

From a customer perspective who uses 6500s for L2/L3 aggregation in the DC and MPLS/IP core functionality, I can see them losing their shine. They are a solid platform and I do like them a lot but working with the caveats can be a pain. N7K is starting to look like a winning platform :

* 2nd Gen 10GE ports will be reasonably priced
* Price for line-rate 1GE-TX LC's is attractive
* Switching capacity upgrade path looks fantastic
* Smart guys doing smart things (like OTV)
* An OS that delivers on all the broken promises of ION / Modular etc

Ok, so it's missing some functionality but lots of the important stuff is being worked on. There's no service modules but personally I think thats a good thing. I still have nightmares about running Gen1 FWSM in the same chassis as a Gen1 CSM. (Here's a thought - make a good standalone firewall that can compete with Vendor J, and a good standalone loadbalancer that can compete with Vendor F )

If there's a 4 slot chassis in the 2nd generation then I could see N7K and N5K / N4K as a possible end-to-end platform for L3/MPLS core, L2/L3 aggregation, and L2 access. And it would all run the same software !!! Pinch me - I must be dreaming :)

David
...
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

gert at greenie

Nov 25, 2009, 11:19 PM

Post #12 of 38 (2038 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 09:32:37AM +1000, David Hughes wrote:
> If there's a 4 slot chassis in the 2nd generation then I could
> see N7K and N5K / N4K as a possible end-to-end platform for L3/MPLS
> core, L2/L3 aggregation, and L2 access. And it would all run the
> same software !!! Pinch me - I must be dreaming :)

But that would impact ASR1k sales. Can't have that. Different BU.

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net

lists at hojmark

Nov 26, 2009, 5:14 AM

Post #13 of 38 (2030 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:32:37 +1000, you wrote:

> If there's a 4 slot chassis in the 2nd generation then I could see
> N7K and N5K / N4K as a possible end-to-end platform for L3/MPLS core,
> L2/L3 aggregation, and L2 access. And it would all run the same
> software !!!

Except, of cause, the N7K doesn't currently do MPLS and won't for
another year, and when it does it will, as always, be released in
fases.

Also, Nexus is positioned for the DC, so there will always be lacking
features when compared to the SP platforms.

'Don't send a switch to do a router's job'.

-A
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

jarruda-cnsp at jarruda

Nov 26, 2009, 5:45 AM

Post #14 of 38 (2030 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:32:37 +1000, you wrote:
>
>> If there's a 4 slot chassis in the 2nd generation then I could see
>> N7K and N5K / N4K as a possible end-to-end platform for L3/MPLS core,
>> L2/L3 aggregation, and L2 access. And it would all run the same
>> software !!!
>
> Except, of cause, the N7K doesn't currently do MPLS and won't for
> another year, and when it does it will, as always, be released in
> fases.
>
> Also, Nexus is positioned for the DC, so there will always be lacking
> features when compared to the SP platforms.
>
> 'Don't send a switch to do a router's job'.

I'm curious, what is the difference ? I remember the debate (bridge x
switch) in another generation...

Is the N7K is a hard-coded-can't-change forwarding glue (EARL8 at that)
platform, TCAM based, hence the 'switch' term ?

Or in the feature set (control-plane ? forwarding-plane ?)
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

rdobbins at arbor

Nov 26, 2009, 6:33 AM

Post #15 of 38 (2035 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On Nov 26, 2009, at 9:45 PM, Julio Arruda wrote:

> Is the N7K is a hard-coded-can't-change forwarding glue (EARL8 at that) platform, TCAM based, hence the 'switch' term ?

It uses the EARL8 ASIC, yes, and it's considered a layer-3 switch. However, the EARL8 does allow for considerably more flexibility than the previous ASICs (i.e., good NetFlow, good uRPF, not so many weird ACL-construction caveats, etc.), and the NX-OS software platform is much more easy a development platform to deal with than IOS.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins [at] arbor> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.

-- H.L. Mencken

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

gert at greenie

Nov 26, 2009, 7:07 AM

Post #16 of 38 (2030 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

Hi,

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 08:45:37AM -0500, Julio Arruda wrote:
> >'Don't send a switch to do a router's job'.
>
> I'm curious, what is the difference ?

Price, revenue, target market, business unit.

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net

lukasz at bromirski

Nov 26, 2009, 8:19 AM

Post #17 of 38 (2029 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On 2009-11-26 14:45, Julio Arruda wrote:

> I'm curious, what is the difference ? I remember the debate (bridge x
> switch) in another generation...
> Is the N7K is a hard-coded-can't-change forwarding glue (EARL8 at that)
> platform, TCAM based, hence the 'switch' term ?
> Or in the feature set (control-plane ? forwarding-plane ?)

As Roland already pointed out, the forwarding plane is similiar -
EARL8 is the logic and it is common for Sup2T and N7K current generation
of Sup. There's difference (big one) in the way switch
fabric is built, and there's also a difference in the way
control plane operates - different hardware behind the CLI for 6500
(even with Sup2T) and the one you find in N7K.

--
"Everything will be okay in the end. | �ukasz Bromirski
If it's not okay, it's not the end. | http://lukasz.bromirski.net
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

david at hughes

Nov 26, 2009, 11:44 AM

Post #18 of 38 (2029 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On 26/11/2009, at 10:17 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:

> Also, Nexus is positioned for the DC, so there will always be lacking
> features when compared to the SP platforms.

Yup, and that's exactly the scenario I was talking about. We run mpls/ip + l2/l3 agg + l2 access for our DC networks and our inter-DC networks. So, yes, when NX-OS has MPLS (and yup, could be 2010) then it'd fit all of that down to the ground.

David
...
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

ltd at cisco

Nov 26, 2009, 7:33 PM

Post #19 of 38 (2017 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On 27/11/2009, at 12:14 AM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
>> If there's a 4 slot chassis in the 2nd generation then I could see
>> N7K and N5K / N4K as a possible end-to-end platform for L3/MPLS core,
>> L2/L3 aggregation, and L2 access. And it would all run the same
>> software !!!
>
> Except, of cause, the N7K doesn't currently do MPLS and won't for
> another year, and when it does it will, as always, be released in
> fases.
>
> Also, Nexus is positioned for the DC, so there will always be lacking
> features when compared to the SP platforms.

certainly when we (Cisco) announced the Nexus platform, we wanted to be very specific in terms of where the Nexus portfolio is positioned - and more precisely where it is not - because NX-OS intentionally is not at parity with IOS, and the initial I/O modules weren't targeted at internet-sized h/w FIB.

that there isn't parity with IOS has both good points and bad points.
it rules out Nexus for some specific parts of networks.
but its also considered a good thing by others - Nexus & NX-OS reliability & availability are second to none, and characteristics such as forwarding remaining in a hardware path in all cases - are welcomed by many as a step forward.

fast forward to now from Nexus first release and some of the functionality enabled by Nexus and NX-OS are used by many folks outside of the 'strict' historic DC positioning

>
> 'Don't send a switch to do a router's job'.

"routers" will always have deeper buffers, esoteric queueing structures and more functionality by virtue of the choice of software processing and/or programmable NPUs used.
however many folks today consider c6500/c7600 to be "router" platforms and they are fundamentally PFC3 based.

N7K M1 I/O forwarding engine is PFC4 which has all the capabilities of PFC3 + much more.
while its true that its not programmable in the sense of a NPU is, there is a lot of flexibility in its capabilities which will become apparent as there are subsequent NX-OS releases.

i think both have their places.
often it comes down to the price/port between a "router port" and a "switch port".
even with "L3 switches" the old adage of "switch where you can, route where you must" probably holds true.

cheers,

lincoln.

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

lists at hojmark

Nov 26, 2009, 11:41 PM

Post #20 of 38 (1994 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:33:37 +1100, you wrote:
>> Except, of cause, the N7K doesn't currently do MPLS and won't for
>> another year, and when it does it will, as always, be released in
>> fases.

> fast forward to now from Nexus first release and some of the functionality
> enabled by Nexus and NX-OS are used by many folks outside of the 'strict'
> historic DC positioning

Yes, but MPLS was specifically mentioned. So when will the N7K do MPLS
VPN, TE, EoMPLS, and VPLS? Oh, it isn't even EC'd? And that's just at
the high level, so when we get to the nitty gritty details of each of
them, there will be more waiting...

>> 'Don't send a switch to do a router's job'.

> "routers" will always have deeper buffers, esoteric queueing structures
> and more functionality by virtue of the choice of software processing
> and/or programmable NPUs used.

Hardware architecture aside, 'routers' will normally also have those
crucial 'router features' from day 1. You won't have to wait years for
them.

> however many folks today consider c6500/c7600 to be "router" platforms
> and they are fundamentally PFC3 based.

Yup, but if you want to do anything remotely 'fancy', you'll be using
the NPU-based blades at more or less the same price per blade as the
whole original router...

> i think both have their places.

Sure, there's a place for a great DC switch. The switching fabric in
the N7K is a fantastic piece of engineering, for example, and it's a
good thing it found it's way into the ASR 9000 too.

-A

PS: Even then 6500 does MPLS VPNs, and we have DC customers who can't
migrate to the N7K (for higher density 10G and lower price per 10G
port), because it doesn't do MPLS VPNs. (Oh, and that box from Vendor
J does).
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

ltd at cisco

Nov 27, 2009, 12:37 AM

Post #21 of 38 (1996 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On 27/11/2009, at 6:41 PM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:33:37 +1100, you wrote:
>>> Except, of cause, the N7K doesn't currently do MPLS and won't for
>>> another year, and when it does it will, as always, be released in
>>> fases.
>
>> fast forward to now from Nexus first release and some of the functionality
>> enabled by Nexus and NX-OS are used by many folks outside of the 'strict'
>> historic DC positioning
>
> Yes, but MPLS was specifically mentioned. So when will the N7K do MPLS
> VPN, TE, EoMPLS, and VPLS? Oh, it isn't even EC'd? And that's just at
> the high level, so when we get to the nitty gritty details of each of
> them, there will be more waiting...

generally speaking, cisco-nsp is not where we post product or platform specific roadmaps. :)

your cisco account team should be able to assist you on N7K / NX-OS roadmap & where things stand.
if they cannot help you then let me know off-list,

cheers,

lincoln.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mtinka at globaltransit

Nov 27, 2009, 2:01 AM

Post #22 of 38 (1994 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

On Thursday 26 November 2009 07:32:37 am David Hughes wrote:

> From a customer perspective who uses 6500s for L2/L3
> aggregation in the DC and MPLS/IP core functionality, I
> can see them losing their shine. They are a solid
> platform and I do like them a lot but working with the
> caveats can be a pain. N7K is starting to look like a
> winning platform :

Same here - we love the 6500 to bits. It's simply solid
provided you know which buttons NOT to push (easy in our
case, they only do pure Layer 2 Ethernet forwarding).

However, for any new purchases, we're now looking at the
Nexus 7000's and Juniper's EX8200's because they make more
sense for 10Gbps Layer 2 aggregation, and will scale to
40Gbps and 100Gbps.

Even with the SUP2T looming in the horizon, we'd be insane
thinking we can grow with the 6500 in the future beyond
10Gbps.

Cheers,

Mark.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.82 KB)

justin at justinshore

Nov 27, 2009, 7:33 AM

Post #23 of 38 (1985 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
> PS: Even then 6500 does MPLS VPNs, and we have DC customers who can't
> migrate to the N7K (for higher density 10G and lower price per 10G
> port), because it doesn't do MPLS VPNs. (Oh, and that box from Vendor
> J does).

Exactly. These days MPLS/VPNs is as much a DC feature as basic
switching. Our DC couldn't operate with MPLS/VPNs.

Justin

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

jmplank at gmail

Nov 27, 2009, 7:58 AM

Post #24 of 38 (1986 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

Really. The product seems to be selling quite well. You are over
stating. Keep it real.

That being said I wish vendors would include mainstream features
(which mpls has become). In early releases of software. That is not
cisco specific.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 27, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Justin Shore <justin [at] justinshore>
wrote:

> Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
>> PS: Even then 6500 does MPLS VPNs, and we have DC customers who can't
>> migrate to the N7K (for higher density 10G and lower price per 10G
>> port), because it doesn't do MPLS VPNs. (Oh, and that box from Vendor
>> J does).
>
> Exactly. These days MPLS/VPNs is as much a DC feature as basic
> switching. Our DC couldn't operate with MPLS/VPNs.
>
> Justin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

justin at justinshore

Nov 27, 2009, 9:16 AM

Post #25 of 38 (1982 views)
Permalink

Re: ASR1004 vs 7606(RSP720-CXL) [In reply to]

Jason Plank wrote:
> Really. The product seems to be selling quite well. You are over
> stating. Keep it real.

Hardly. It means that people are using the Nexus as a L2 switching
workhorse and relying on additional L3 hardware to bring in the basic
MPLS/VPN capabilities.

Justin

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads