re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our TestA few years ago the stars aligned and both Cisco and Juniper (and others) agreed to a Light Reading core router bakeoff. Cisco lost. Not surprisingly, this time Cisco refused to participate in the multi-vendor test LR originally envisioned. No - Cisco was only willing to play if they could define eligibility criteria which only it could meet.
C'mon LR do you honestly believe that OC-768 is so important that it should be the criteria for eligibility? Can you name a single carrier who has deployed it or has firm plans for deployment? Didn't think so.
There are some interesting data points here, but the credibility of the whole exercise is undermined by the lack of participation from other vendors. Only participation from other vendors - not a smattering of carrier comments, would ensure a fair and thorough test plan and meaningful results.
re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test>C'mon LR do you honestly believe that OC-768 is >so important that it should be the criteria for >eligibility? Can you name a single carrier who >has deployed it or has firm plans for deployment? >Didn't think so.
Its eligibility is debatable.. What isn't is the need for 768. You haven't been to Japan, Korea, or talked to some EMEA customers in your company have you? When they start bundling 6X10gig between cities you know they need is there.
re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our Test LR did not bill this as a bake-off. This was just a chance to test-drive the CRS-1. A true bake-off of high-end routers would probably be too expensive of an undertaking for the LR folks in this non-boom day and age. It is interesting to read, since very few people have the ability to touch a CRS-1.
However, the fact remains that competitors still cannot get a hold of a CRS-1 to really look for and market its defects. Cisco has torn apart the T640 and probably has engineers dedicated full time to finding its flaws.
re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our TestQuestion remains if 40G is still economically viable against 10G. Given how fast 10G prices have plunged (i.e. XFP modules), does 40G even make sense?
Does CRS-1 provide better port or power density at 40G than can be achieved at 10G?
Internal to the router, 40G must still be broken apart into lower rates, so there is an extra electrical mux/demux stage compared to 10G, too.
re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our TestWe're thinking about CRS-1. Can someone please describe the power provisioning for this test? How much of a difference was their in electric bill for the month of this 10 day test as opposed from a normal month?
re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our TestNever mind... I found it. It's only 13.2 Kilowatts for a loaded chassis. Next question: How many of those units will it take to cause a California brown out? We plan to install one on stage as soon as Slipnot finishes playing.
re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our TestGeez... No help from the crew. I figured it out. Assuming 45,000 megawatts is going to bring everyone to their knees I'm sure we can install about 300,000 units if nobody uses their electric shavers and CA freezes over so we don't have to run the AC's to cool them. Realisticly, we can support about 100,000 of these units on the Internet here if nobody uses their PC's.
re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our TestThe real measure of the CRS-1 is not in some limited lab trial but in the customer adoption. It has been 6 months since launch and no one has deployed this router despite enormous emphasis by Cisco. The article does not address that question. Why if this thing is so ready for prime time has no one adopted it and Cisco continued to lose share in the core?
re: Cisco's CRS-1 Passes Our TestHere is another question no one has even asked: Why, in the quarter after the CRS-1 was announced, did VZ suddenly show up out of nowhere as a 10% JNPR customer. It seems to me that this is not a coincidence, that VZ was waiting on this beast, saw it and went to JNPR. Am I missing something?
Not surprisingly, this time Cisco refused to participate in the multi-vendor test LR originally envisioned. No - Cisco was only willing to play if they could define eligibility criteria which only it could meet.
C'mon LR do you honestly believe that OC-768 is so important that it should be the criteria for eligibility? Can you name a single carrier who has deployed it or has firm plans for deployment?
Didn't think so.
There are some interesting data points here, but the credibility of the whole exercise is undermined by the lack of participation from other vendors. Only participation from other vendors - not a smattering of carrier comments, would ensure a fair and thorough test plan and meaningful results.
my0pic