Cisco 7600 vs ASR 9000
jared at puck.nether.net
Tue Sep 22 11:09:39 UTC 2009
This question would likely be better answered on cisco-nsp.
But the asr9k provides a better roadmap than the 7600/6500 platform.
These are now quite old platforms in the overall lifecycle. The 9k
also runs xr which is either an asset or liability depending on your
Me? I always want a box that provides good diagnostics and protected
memory over one that does not. Bugs happen, software is imperfect. I
want a device that provides the best possible debuging information
when it comes to support time.
These items are not there in regular ios, and IMHO ios-xe does not
really qualify (but is better, just like the ion/modular 6500 code).
On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Nick Colton <networkjedi at geekwhore.net>
> I work for a small CLEC, we have been doing FTTP for 5 years now but
> getting ready to update our core network and introduce IPTV
> services. Cisco
> has been recommending the Cisco 7600 as our core router. My concern
> is that
> cisco told us that in the event of an RSP failover the 7600 could
> take up to
> 30 seconds to begin routing packets again, this seems wrong to me
> since my
> old Extreme Networks BD 6808 can do failovers and rebuild route
> tables in
> under 5 seconds but?? More recently I have been reading up on the
> ASR 9000
> however and it appears that it would be better sized for our company
> the 7600. A few questions I have for the group.
> 1. Has anyone used the ASR 9000 in place of a Cisco 7600?
> 2. Is the ASR 9000 Carrier ready? Meaning 5x9's of availability, few
> component failures, solid software...etc
> 3. Has anyone had issues where it took the 7600 30 seconds to start
> again after an RSP failover?
More information about the NANOG