Cisco 1000 Series Aggregation Services Routers (ASR 1000)

- It is well suited for companies that have a big WAN environment, this devices can fit in there easily and have multiple provider circuits.
- Well suited for private cloud environments where multi tenancy is required,
- Device can be used as IPN/ISN device as it supports jumbo frames for an ACI multi-site/remote leaf deployment.
- Device is well suited for branches that have their own DIA and MPLS circuits.

Cisco 1000 Series Aggregation Services Routers is appropriate for a larger data center that needs the ability to send large quantities of data.

It is appropriate where OTV functionality is required and not suitable for small-scale industries as it is quite expensive.

These routers work very well when at least 1Gbps is required at the Internet edge with BGP to dual ISPs but excel in that with licensing upgrades, can support up to 10Gbps. These routers also work well for providing OTV functionality, which is now present only on the Nexus 7K platform (going EoL) and the 8500-series Catalyst line (very new).

The Cisco ASR 1001 Aggregation Services Router (ASR) is best suited for applications that require high CPU throughput in a small space. It's extremely lightweight and does a great job of running CPU-intensive routing protocols within our network. We are definitely not using it to its full potential, but all the features are there. Its drawback is that the small form factor gives it an extremely small port density.

From my experience, I find that the ASR 1000s are excellent equipment to use in an MPLS network as a route reflector. ASR 1000s are also very good as a WAN aggregation router. WAN aggregation capable of supporting multiple Gigabit connections

[One] scenario [based on our experience] is [that our company has] hundreds of thousands of patients, [and] detailed clinical records. [There is a] necessity to immediately access these records in the cloud, [and to always have them] on and available, as [they are] critical to patient health, treatment, and survival.

These routers are very well suited in branch offices where you can enable the ZBFW and help protect the network at that office. Having two 10 GB ports on the router are also a key feature on these routers.

Our customers are using ASR 1000 as a CE router in important locations or in locations, also as NNI to interconnect two MPLS networks, etc.

These work very well at the WAN edge, it may be costly for some. In which case, it may be worth considering an ISR if all the features or performance of the ASR 1000 are not needed. It works very well in a multi-gig environment regardless of the implementations we have done so far. These also work well at the edge or for smaller cores. I would recommend assessing your needs and checking the documentation to see whether or not this particular router will work for you or if it's overkill. In some cases, a significant amount of money can be saved by going with an ISR (if you still want to stick with Cisco). For data center core or similar environment, these might not be appropriate and I would recommend exploring other models such as ASR 9000.

In the case of our institution, as mentioned before, it is used for the recovery of services, in a modular way, in the face of events affecting Production services. You can pick up the necessary server and bring it with the same IP as the Production team, which greatly facilitates service recovery.

The smaller ASR devices appear to be well suited as simply a router reflector type of device. Due to its limited connections, it will not function well as a customer facing device, but has sufficient power to provide routing table information to other devices within the network without being tasked to process too many packets.

The ASR is an excellent mid-range data center core router.

Internet edge and mpls aggregation - well suited Data center network core - less appropriate

Were high throughput is required the ISR routers are a good fit in both traditional and software-defined WAN deployments. They are not a good fit as voice gateways, in fact, we have several locations that use the ASR routers as they main WAN routers where IRS routers were installed as well to serve as the voice gateways and provide SRST backup for the sites.

We picked Cisco due to already available in-house knowledge and a fair amount of experience. It is also suited for any business environment. It scales to accommodate large business needs and offers an agile environment with real-time lossless data ask with a multitude of complexity. Though cost needs to be kept in mind at first, given the longevity of Cisco, it's not alarming.

In my opinion, Cisco Routers are well suited in all scenarios, from small offices to large data centers, Cisco has models to suit in all environments. A note to the new NX-OS code where you can use on DNA Center, or use Python with netconf or restconf to automate various if not all operations and deployments.

Cisco Routers are well suited for any business environment at scales beyond SOHO/small business. If the business is small, Cisco may be more power and expense that can be afforded or is required. It depends on the business needs and complexity of the requirements.

In facilities where you have trained staff to support them. In price sensitive and low resourced use cases they are not as appropriate. When you need edge or core routing they are the best in breed despite the cost overhead.

Internet edge routers