[c-nsp] ASR opinions..

PC paul4004 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 8 12:48:55 CST 2012


The numbers were based on when I spoke to our SE when considering
purchasing one a couple years back.

It sounds like they may have a revision 2 or new route processor out now
which supports more under this model?

In which case you should be ok, but I'd get it in writing from your rep to
cover all your basis.



On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst <
wiwi at progon.net> wrote:

> On 2012-03-08 18:25, PC wrote:
>
>> The low end ASRs are poor boxes for full BGP table internet edge
>> applications.  They have many other great applications, but the reason
>> they
>> are bad here is simply route limits in the FIB.
>>
>> The asr1001 only supports 512,000 IPV4 routes in the FIB at any given
>> point
>> in time, and 128,000 IPV6 routes.
>>
>
> Current ASR1001 do NOT have that limitation:
>
> <http://www.cisco.com/en/US/**prod/collateral/routers/**
> ps9343/data_sheet_c78-441072.**html<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps9343/data_sheet_c78-441072.html>
> >
>
> > Performance
> > * 1,000,000 IPv4 or 1,000,000 IPv6 routes
> > * BGP RR scalability to 2,000,000 IPv4/IPv6 routes
> >    (using 4-GB memory) or 9,000,000 IPv4/IPv6
> >    routes (using 8-GB memory)
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list