Page 1 / 2   >   >>
nuker 6/10/2013 | 8:46:55 PM
re: Cisco Preps Its Next Core Router: The 'CTR' Would this be targeting the data center too ? Given its dumbed down feature set it does seem a possibility.
Roland 6/6/2013 | 9:27:23 PM
re: Cisco Preps Its Next Core Router: The 'CTR' I wonder if this CTR is based on the same hardware as the MDS 9710 SAN director? That platform supports 1.2 Tbps per line card slot when equipped with six crossbar fabric modules and runs NX-OS.
Craig Matsumoto 6/4/2013 | 9:04:06 PM
re: Cisco Preps Its Next Core Router: The 'CTR' Yeah, I know it's been years in the making - these things always are.
I don't think it was developed *because* of the 7950 - but Cisco has no
direct answer to that box on the market yet (Cisco would tell you to
count the CRS). That's what I meant.

What you're
saying about the LSR cards would make sense. I do think the CTR would
be a full-fledged router (it makes little sense for Cisco to not do that) with, as you said, an option to stuff it like an LSR, as the CRS platform has.
dwx 6/4/2013 | 2:46:12 PM
re: Cisco Preps Its Next Core Router: The 'CTR' The CTR has been in development for a long time, I don't think it's any kind of "response" to ALU or Juniper.

From what I've heard the approach will be like the CRS to have certain line cards available to do full routing, some will be more LSR functionality only. There should be 10x100G LSR cards available from the get go, but less density for the IPoDWDM type cards with fixed coherent/long-haul optics. Of course optics vendors are starting to come out with their own DWDM OTU4 optics to be used in a standard CFP slot.

The only thing I've heard I don't like is that it's a behemoth, and needs a full 23" rack to fit in.
mark-r 6/3/2013 | 3:14:32 PM
re: Cisco Preps Its Next Core Router: The 'CTR' Is this intended for pure-L2 MPLS-TP switching core and transport?

I think the focus nominal port bit rates is misdirected. The major problem has been, and increasingly is, low revenue-generating traffic utilization of the theoretically network bandwidth rates. The reasons for the low effective utilization include all forms and layers of protocol stack and signaling etc overhead, as well as non-adaptive bandwidth physical layer channelization.

Is CTR delivering something to improve the bandwidth utilization rates, e.g. via the discussed multi-layer-optimization?

Overall, having an ASIC based hardware appears as a smart way to mitigate the potential SDN-over-whitebox hardware competition. But what do new CSCO ASICs do that generic (commercial chip based) hardware cannot, irrespective of how 'software-defined'?

Again, multi-layer-optimization in ASICs would seem like a clever approach.
rodolg 6/1/2013 | 2:31:12 AM
re: Cisco Preps Its Next Core Router: The 'CTR' Following the phrase "MPLS label-switched router, to provide the kind of Layer 2 "lean core, it seems to me that this router will be more oriented to do MPLS switching without full intelligence (Service Router).... Additionally the article says that it will incorporate OTN Framing....sounds like MLO (Multilayer Optimization) .... Remember that some carriers are looking forward to reduce the cost in the backbone using a more optimized solution that will reduce the power consumption, cost of routing ports etc, a router specialized more on the MPLS switching without too much intelligence (L2VPN, L3VPN, BGP etc...) and incorporating OTN framing can probably provide a lower cost and optimized solution on the backbone.... so for me maybe this Cisco CTR router is more like a Juniper PTX product than an Alcatel 7950 product.
xieyaohui 6/1/2013 | 12:13:11 AM
re: Cisco Preps Its Next Core Router: The 'CTR' How many slots? How to beat ALU7950?
Craig Matsumoto 5/31/2013 | 11:16:52 PM
re: Cisco Preps Its Next Core Router: The 'CTR' I don't think Cisco is double-counting to get to 1Tbit/s, because they're talking about a 10x100G card. So, it's 1 terabits worth of ports, or, 2Tbit/s if you're double-counting.

Re: Full service router etc -- can't say for sure. My gut impression is that it is, but I don't have specifics to back that up.

It very much *will* start with 100G ports, just not 10 of them on a card all at once. I'd assume it'll start with 2x100G or 4x100G cards. The thing seems to be all about 100G density.

So, on the surface: Yes, I do think it's an answer to the 7950. Not saying it beats the 7950; you can think of the CTR as more a catchup if you want.
Craig Matsumoto 5/31/2013 | 11:10:01 PM
re: Cisco Preps Its Next Core Router: The 'CTR' Indeed I do. Spellchecker isn't smart enough to catch that one for some reason. (And apparently, neither was I.) :) Thanks!
Tyler Smith 5/31/2013 | 10:46:27 PM
re: Cisco Preps Its Next Core Router: The 'CTR' I think you mean 7950. :)
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Sign In