ASR 1000 election

[joan.luque]

Hello all,

We are about to change our Internet Gateway Routers in our main datacenter.  Now we have two C3945 as a Internet Gateway Routers and other two C3945E as Core Routers.

We are evaluating the possible alternatives and we think that the ASR 1000 series is the better solution for us. But we have reviewed the Ordering Guide and we have several doubts about that. Our first approach was buy two ASR 1001 in order to substitute the actual four routers. In theory this solutions offers us 100% redundant scenario (hardware and software) but in the Ordering Guide specifies the following: software redundancy (FLSASR1-IOSRED) is not recommended for Internet Gateway deployments.

What means this exactly ? Why is not recommended the software redundancy in the  Internet Gateway deployments?

The second approach is install just one 1006 with redundant RP and ESP. But maybe this deployment is too big for our organizations. Also in this case the solution is not 100% redundant.

Could someone help us with this topic?

Regrads,

[xthuijs]

Hi Joan,

this is the forum for XR related products (like asr9000, crs, gsr, ncs6000), but let me try my best to answer this question for you.

I noticed that our product marketing alias on the ASR1000 had received a similar question some time ago and this was the response to that:

In this instance I believe "not recommended" for the 1RU/2RU systems for
dual-IOSd is due to it not being officially tested.
There are no particular problems that I am aware of with dual-IOSd on
these products running BNG/SP-WIFI deployments.
We do test HW redundancy on the larger platforms so HA is fundamentally
tested but we do not test SW-HA for IOS.
Note that deploying dual-IODd on these products has a significant impact
on the achievable scale of the systems.
That scale impact and the lack of official testing would lead to the
"not recommended" notation.

If you're looking for a powerful and scalable device, maybe also look at the ASR9001 that may very well suit your needs. I think it is price comparable or even cheaper in price per 10G port. So maybe something to think about?

regards

xander

~~

Xander

Cisco ASR9000 Principal Engineer

[joan.luque]

Hi Xander,

Thanks for your reply. I apologize if it is not the correct sub-forum to post my question. Maybe the forum description confused me:

Access troubleshooting, configuration, protocols, and technical resource topics on Cisco XR OS and Platforms for enterprise applications and Cisco Product connections, including: XR OS and Platforms, ASR 1000, ASR 9000, ASR9K, MPLS, IOS XR, XR PIEs, XR AS9000. 

Anyway, I can understand from your answer that Cisco has not tested yet certain functionalites with dual-IOSd. I do not understand how this can affect in a scenario with double chassis (two ASR1001 for example). Maybe I'm forgetting something important...

I will take a look to the Cisco ASR9001 as you recommend.

Regards,

[xthuijs]

Thanks for pointing that out Joan. I never realized a1k was mentioned there, I updated the description to reflect it correctly.

The smaller platforms may have different CPU's and memory configuration and dual stack IOSd will consume some extra power and memory which is then consumed by that dual stack application which comes at the cost of some potential achievable scale that could otherwise be met.

Yeah look at the 9001 and see what you think. Also the cisco live preso 2003 and 2904 give some good details about the platform and architecture that may help you make the right decision.

cheers

xander