Re: [c-nsp] policer on ASR1001X
Lukasz Bromirski <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.nsp.cisco |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Saku, Mark, > On 10 Sep 2021, at 14:38, Saku Ytti <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Sept 2021 at 14:53, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> With Cisco putting a lot more effort into IOS XR, I really wonder if the >> ASR1000 and other platforms based on IOS XE will be around in the >> medium-to-long term. > > Didn't they just release next-gen catalyst switches and isr cpes > (rebranded as catalyst?) with IOS-XE? IOS-XE is here to stay :) Indeed, there’s “dumbed down” version of it for SD-WAN, and they’re being slowly unified with normal IOS-XE being adopted to work in “centralized” (vs “autonomous”) mode. That’s not “autonomous” like with the Autonomic Networking feature from some years back, it’s “normal” IOS-XE. From hardware perspective, yes, UADP (Catalyst/switches) and QFP (Catalyst/ASR/routers) can handle a lot of fancy QoS duties, and doing pps/bps at the same time would be just enhancement. PPS limit for normal traffic seems to be less popular as Customers usually care more about bandwidth/throughput than PPS, while PPS is *very* important and more applicable for Control-Plane protection duties, as all processing is PPS-bound obviously. @James - please reach out to your account team to request such feature. -- Łukasz Bromirski CCIE R&S/SP #15929, CCDE #2012::17 _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/