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.
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?
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.
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.
This document is an early notification of a behaviour change that will be introduced in IOS XR release 6.5.
IOS XR configuration principles relevant for this article are:
On router platforms all interfaces must be by defaul...
With XR 4.2.0 the ASR9000 is releasing a new line of hardware models. This amongst others is the RSP440, the next generation RSP with faster switch fabric along with Typhoon based Linecards, the next generation network processor.
The Cisco EPN system incorporates a network architecture designed to consolidate multiples services on a single Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) transport network. This network is designed primarily based on Application ...