Re: Cisco 7600 vs ASR 9000

[Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>]

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  
network.

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).

Jared Mauch

On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Nick Colton <networkjedi () geekwhore net>  
wrote:

> I work for a small CLEC, we have been doing FTTP for 5 years now but  
> are
> 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  
> than
> 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  
> routing
> again after an RSP failover?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick