cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
338
Views
0
Helpful
6
Replies
Highlighted

Why we need ASR9K for IIG?

Dear All

 We have existing CRS1 to do the IIG (International Internet Gateway) and will replace soon.  We are looking for ASR9K but my boss asking me why we need ASR9K? Why don't we choose N7K which is lower price?  

 

 I know that ASR9K focus on service provider and N7K focus on datacenter but in the real world many service provider implement N7K in their network because of price. Can anybody let me know what's difference between ASR9K and N7K in term of feature that can convince my boss to choose the ASR9K? 

 

Thank you

Pichet

2 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS

Accepted Solutions
Highlighted
Cisco Employee

its true that the a9k is a more expensive, but it has a lot more capabilities also.

one of the key parts to this decision is the route scale and the forwarding power.

for an internet gateway, you'll need to support a lot of routes in your FIB, this the a9k can hold. n7k is near max.

also feature capabilties are more extensive on a9k vs n7k. think about for instance qos scale and performance or generic forwarding capabilties when it comes to routing such as pps in combination with featuresets.

so while you can use the n7k as a border router, it is more suitable for that in the DC and even there we see a general model of N7k for switching and a9k for the routing part.

for a project like this, I think the a9k is a better fit. if you had a small/medium DC I could have gone either way.

both great products, similar modular OS, so that is not the differentiator, it should be pps and (routing) scale and performance.

regards

xander

View solution in original post

Highlighted

hi pichet, in the existing releases, correct that is not in there yet, but there is an enhancement for the tag to ip case: CSCuy08854 this was recently integrated and coming in the next 61 release.

cheers!!

xander

View solution in original post

6 REPLIES 6
Highlighted
Cisco Employee

its true that the a9k is a more expensive, but it has a lot more capabilities also.

one of the key parts to this decision is the route scale and the forwarding power.

for an internet gateway, you'll need to support a lot of routes in your FIB, this the a9k can hold. n7k is near max.

also feature capabilties are more extensive on a9k vs n7k. think about for instance qos scale and performance or generic forwarding capabilties when it comes to routing such as pps in combination with featuresets.

so while you can use the n7k as a border router, it is more suitable for that in the DC and even there we see a general model of N7k for switching and a9k for the routing part.

for a project like this, I think the a9k is a better fit. if you had a small/medium DC I could have gone either way.

both great products, similar modular OS, so that is not the differentiator, it should be pps and (routing) scale and performance.

regards

xander

View solution in original post

Highlighted

Xander

  I have issue with ABF for incoming traffic with label. And from my research I found this word "ABF is not supported for incoming labelled/MPLS packets." in this forum. I just want to make sure this is still not support or it work right now. In case not support how I can do for workaround.

Thanks

Pichet

Highlighted

hi pichet, in the existing releases, correct that is not in there yet, but there is an enhancement for the tag to ip case: CSCuy08854 this was recently integrated and coming in the next 61 release.

cheers!!

xander

View solution in original post

Highlighted

Hi Xander

 Thanks for answer. I can't see the bug detail cause it's a internal bug. Could you share me the detail? Or do I need to open the tac case if I want to see the detail.

Thank you

Pichet

Highlighted

Ah I see now the ddts doesnt have a release note, this is what I added and will be visible shortly after screening completes:

Release-note: Modified 03/11/2016 05:43:45 by xthuijs

<B>Symptom:</B>
New ability to apply L3/L4 ACL on labeled packets

<B>Conditions:</B>
P router having an ACL to filter packets on its label switching interfaces

<B>Workaround:</B>
ePBR allows for the use of classification (by acl for instance) and actions (set next hop, drop, forward as is etc) on labeled packets.

<B>Further Problem Description:</B>
Type of behavior change:
         Functionality
Release introduced:
         6.1.1
Old behavior:
         MPLS tag2ip paks hitting a PE at its ingress from the core, were not subjected to ingress v4 or v6 acl.

New behavior:
         MPLS tag2ip paks hitting a PE at its ingress from the core, are subjected to ingress v4 or v6 acl.
Highlighted

thank you so much.

Content for Community-Ad