Low Cost 10G Router

Wed May 20 06:54:07 UTC 2015

ASR1K (XE) has great BGP implementation, go for it if you are OK with density/throughput.

Regards,
Jeff

> On May 19, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Mark Tees <marktees at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> For the lists benefit, there is a 6 X 10GBE option for the ASR1000
> series it seems. No idea on pricing though.
> 
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/application-networking-services/wide-area-application-services-waas-software/data-sheet-c78-729778.pdf
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
>> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark L. Tees