Re: [c-nsp] C8200/Spitfire/Pacific
Chris Welti <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.nsp.cisco |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 18.03.22 10:08, Saku Ytti wrote: > 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). Had a look at the 8201 (Q100), but then the 8201-32FH (Q200) seemed like a much better choice. Newer, better chip (twice TCAM so better route scale, more future-proof), less power (7nm), cheaper. All 32 ports are the same QSFP56-DD, so no restrictions like on the 8201 for QSFP28 ports due to reverse gearboxes like in the 8201. (regarding breakouts) -- Chris _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/