Re: [c-nsp] C8200/Spitfire/Pacific
Saku Ytti <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.nsp.cisco |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAAeewD98p10RBEb=PsDRYU660krHCBb9_9dh22GVu7ijxbDTKQ@mail.gmail.com> |
Hey Chris, On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 11:03, Chris Welti <[email protected]> wrote: > Can't report from production, but we have a 8201-32FH (Q200/Gibraltar) in the lab > right now. Currently considering it as a successor for 400G deployments > where we had NCS55A1-24H for 100G before. > So far so good for our use case as a basic PE. (unicast/multicast v4/v6, OSPFv2/v3, BGP, MPLS for L2VPN VPLS/EoMPLS only, access ACLs) > Our needed feature set is very limited, without QoS, VRFs, MPLS TE, SR or SRv6, so can't comment on any of those features. > > Overall it seems it has more features and less limitations than the Jericho+ in the NCS55A1-24H, e.g. v6 egress ACLs work, support for flowspec, uRPF allow-default. > My hope is that due to Cisco not depending on Broadcom and their SDK in those chips that there will be less limitations and quicker fixes than in their Jericho products, but who knows. > Otherwise seems pretty similar to Jericho2 products, except its less power hungry. Thank you, I appreciate this. Are you focusing on Q200 because it ships, or did you look at Q100 but decided against it? I also similarly view it as a direct J competitor, and of course a lot of the same people were involved designing both (J1 and Q100). -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/