[c-nsp] Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing, Why?
tdurack at gmail.com
Fri Jun 19 14:44:38 UTC 2020
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:34 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> On 19/Jun/20 16:09, Tim Durack wrote:
> > It could be worse: Nexus ;-(
> > There is another version of the future:
> > 1. SP "Silicon One" IOS-XR
> > 2. Enterprise "Silicon One" IOS-XE
> > Same hardware, different software, features, licensing model etc.
> All this forking weakens a vendor's position in some respects, because
> when BU's are presenting one company as 6,000 ones, it's difficult for
> buying consistency.
> Options are great, but when options have options, it starts to get ugly,
> Ah well...
> > Silicon One looks like an interesting strategy: single ASIC for fixed,
> > modular, fabric. Replace multiple internal and external ASIC family,
> > compete with merchant, whitebox, MSDC etc.
> That is the hope. We've been to the cinema for this one before, though.
> Quite a few times. So I'm not holding my breath.
> > The Cisco 8000/8200 is not branded as NCS, which is BCM.
> Not all of it - remember the big pink elephant in the room, the NCS
> 6000? That is/was nPower. Again, sending customers in all sorts of
> directions with that box, where now ASR9000 and the new 8000 seem to be
> the go-to box. Someone can't make up their mind over there.
> > I asked the NCS5/55k guys why they didn't use UADP. No good answer,
> > although I suspect some big customer(s) were demanding BCM for their
> > own programming needs. Maybe there were some memory bandwidth issues
> > with UADP, which is what Q100 HBM is the answer for.
> When you're building boxes for one or two customers, things like this
> tend to happen.
> But like I've been saying for some time, the big brands competing with
> the small brands over merchant silicon doesn't make sense. If you want
> merchant silicon to reduce cost, you're better off playing with the new
> brands that will charge less and be more flexible. While I do like IOS
> XR and Junos, paying a premium for them for a chip that will struggle
> the same way across all vendor implementations just doesn't track.
Yes, for sure NCS6K was a completely different beast, much as NCS1K, NCS2K.
Not sure why the NCS naming was adopted vs. ASR, and then dropped for
8000/8200. Probably lots of battles within the Cisco conglomerate.
Not defending, just observing. Either way, networks got to get built,
debugged, maintained, debugged, upgraded, debugged. All while improving
performance, managing CAPEX, reducing OPEX.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG