On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Asbjorn Hojmark wrote: > nV is like being able to take a line card out of the ASR 9000 and move it to a remote location. You get full-featured ports (incl. L2, L3, HQoS, MPLS, VPLS etc.), all managed like any other port on the router, just located at a remote site
> Sure, you could transport services in L2 to a remote switch, but that's not really the same thing. I think of this as an alternative to buying a separate router to place on the remote site.
yes it's all looking really hot. > And no, nV is not (currently) all that one could hope for, like redundant uplinks are missing. I'm sure that will improve over time. (At least, that's what marketecture like this says: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns524/ns562/ns592/asr_nv_100611.pdf)
yes that's the one paper all googling ends up at.
I do not care too much about having to manage one or multiple chassis.
What I find interesting though is getting rid of hsrp, vrrp, glbp and all other next hop redundancy shims while having redundant uplinks to multiple chassis. Sort of like multichassis port-channels in Vss.
I am not sure yet what can of worms this opens though as I am still lacking understanding of new IOS XR concepts.
Seems we do not have to worry about vlan id signifance so much as IOS XR just pushes and pops vlan ids from subinterfaces.
Lets just hope this all comes together and we will find a way to transition smoothly ;)
> Sent from my tablet; excuse brevity
> On 07/04/2012, at 16.50, Aled Morris <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> The ASR9000v satellite doesn't sound like much of an improvement over simply trunking to a conventional L2 switch and having each switchport presented as a separate VLAN to the router for L3 processing.
>> The ability to manage it all with one instance of IOS might be simpler but using discrete L2 switches seems to have a lot more flexibility.
>> What am I missing?
>> On 7 April 2012 12:30, Asbjorn Hojmark <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 1) Not currently
>> 2) Yes
>> 3) There is no local switching
>> Sent from my tablet; excuse brevity
>> On 07/04/2012, at 13.59, Robert Hass <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> I have three questions regarding ASR9000v deployments:
>>> 1) Can I connect one ASR9000v to two ASR9010 (to have redundancy). If
>>> yes are these ASR9010 have to be direct interconnected ?
>>> 2) Can ASR9000v be eg. 200-300KM away from ASR9010 (10GE over DWDM).
>>> 3) Are ASR9000v providing local switching between GE ports or all
>>> traffic is going to upper layer (ASR9010) and going back to ASR9000v ?
>> cisco-nsp mailing list email@example.com
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> cisco-nsp mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Christian Kratzer CK Software GmbH
Email: email@example.com Wildberger Weg 24/2
Phone: +49 7032 893 997 - 0 D-71126 Gaeufelden
Fax: +49 7032 893 997 - 9 HRB 245288, Amtsgericht Stuttgart
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Kratzer
cisco-nsp mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/