anzolex at gmail
Apr 10, 2012, 1:24 PM
Post #8 of 8
The ASR9K nV technology will simplify your NGN Carrier Ethernet
Architecture by reducing the complexity of constantly growing L2/L3
Access networks used for MPLS L2/L3 VPN Services Aggregation.
On 09/04/2012 15:07, Christian Kratzer wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
>> nV is like being able to take a line card out of the ASR 9000 and
>> move it to a remote location. You get full-featured ports (incl. L2,
>> L3, HQoS, MPLS, VPLS etc.), all managed like any other port on the
>> router, just located at a remote site
>> Sure, you could transport services in L2 to a remote switch, but
>> that's not really the same thing. I think of this as an alternative
>> to buying a separate router to place on the remote site.
> yes it's all looking really hot.
>> And no, nV is not (currently) all that one could hope for, like
>> redundant uplinks are missing. I'm sure that will improve over time.
>> (At least, that's what marketecture like this says:
> yes that's the one paper all googling ends up at.
> I do not care too much about having to manage one or multiple chassis.
> What I find interesting though is getting rid of hsrp, vrrp, glbp and
> all other next hop redundancy shims while having redundant uplinks to
> multiple chassis. Sort of like multichassis port-channels in Vss.
> I am not sure yet what can of worms this opens though as I am still
> lacking understanding of new IOS XR concepts.
> Seems we do not have to worry about vlan id signifance so much as IOS
> XR just pushes and pops vlan ids from subinterfaces.
> Lets just hope this all comes together and we will find a way to
> transition smoothly ;)
>> Sent from my tablet; excuse brevity
>> On 07/04/2012, at 16.50, Aled Morris <aledm [at] qix> wrote:
>>> The ASR9000v satellite doesn't sound like much of an improvement
>>> over simply trunking to a conventional L2 switch and having each
>>> switchport presented as a separate VLAN to the router for L3
>>> The ability to manage it all with one instance of IOS might be
>>> simpler but using discrete L2 switches seems to have a lot more
>>> What am I missing?
>>> On 7 April 2012 12:30, Asbjorn Hojmark <lists [at] hojmark> wrote:
>>> 1) Not currently
>>> 2) Yes
>>> 3) There is no local switching
>>> Sent from my tablet; excuse brevity
>>> On 07/04/2012, at 13.59, Robert Hass <robhass [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>> I have three questions regarding ASR9000v deployments:
>>>> 1) Can I connect one ASR9000v to two ASR9010 (to have redundancy). If
>>>> yes are these ASR9010 have to be direct interconnected ?
>>>> 2) Can ASR9000v be eg. 200-300KM away from ASR9010 (10GE over DWDM).
>>>> 3) Are ASR9000v providing local switching between GE ports or all
>>>> traffic is going to upper layer (ASR9010) and going back to ASR9000v ?
>>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/