Cisco ASR-9006-AC vs ASR-9001: Carrier-Class Router Performance Comparison

When evaluating carrier-grade routing solutions, network architects must carefully compare the Cisco ASR-9006-AC (modular aggregation router) with the ASR-9001 (compact service router). This detailed analysis examines their technical specifications, operational capabilities, and ideal deployment scenarios to help service providers make informed infrastructure decisions.

Technical Specifications Comparison

The ASR-9006-AC delivers 3x greater performance than the ASR-9001, making it the superior choice for large-scale service provider deployments.

Functional Capabilities Analysis

1. Routing Performance

Shared Capabilities:

• MPLS routing

• BGP/OSPF/IS-IS

• QoS policies

• Basic NetFlow

ASR-9006-AC Advantages:

• Segment routing

• Advanced telemetry

• 100G interface support

• Full redundancy

2. Service Provider Features

• ASR-9006-AC excels in:

• Large-scale aggregation

• Metro Ethernet services

• Carrier Ethernet 2.0

• ASR-9001 optimized for:

• Cell site backhaul

• Business services

• Small POP deployments

Physical Design Comparison

Chassis Architecture:

• ASR-9006-AC:

• 10RU modular chassis

• Hot-swappable line cards

• Front/rear service access

• 65 lbs empty

• ASR-9001:

• 1RU fixed configuration

• Integrated interfaces

• Front-access only

• 18 lbs

Environmental Specifications:

• Operating temperature:

• Both: -5°C to 45°C

• Acoustic noise:

• ASR-9006-AC: 72 dBA

• ASR-9001: 55 dBA

• Power options:

• ASR-9006-AC: AC/DC

• ASR-9001: AC only

User Experience Evaluation

Management Interfaces:
Both support:

• Cisco IOS-XR

• NETCONF/YANG

• CLI access

• SNMP monitoring

Operational Differences:

• ASR-9006-AC better for:

• Large-scale provisioning

• Complex traffic engineering

• Multi-service environments

• ASR-9001 ideal for:

• Quick deployments

• Simple configurations

• Remote site management

Pricing & Total Cost Analysis

Acquisition Costs:

• ASR-9001: 25,000−35,000

• ASR-9006-AC: 85,000−120,000

Operational Expenditures:

• Power consumption difference: ~$600/year

• Rack space requirements:

• ASR-9006-AC needs 10x more space

• Support contracts:

• ASR-9006-AC requires premium SLA

Five-Year TCO Considerations:

• ASR-9006-AC justified for:

• Core network locations

• High-density aggregation

• Future growth needs

• ASR-9001 economical for:

• Edge locations

• Fixed capacity needs

• Budget-sensitive projects

Power Efficiency Metrics

Energy Usage:

• ASR-9006-AC:

• Idle: 500W

• Peak: 1,200W

• ASR-9001:

• Idle: 150W

• Peak: 220W

Efficiency Comparison:

• Performance per watt:

• ASR-9006-AC: 200 Mbps/W

• ASR-9001: 363 Mbps/W

Compatibility & Ecosystem

Third-Party Integration:
Both support:

• OSS/BSS systems

• SDN controllers

• Automation tools

ASR-9006-AC Advantages:

• Multi-vendor interoperability

• Advanced programmability

• Carrier-grade synchronization

Software Support & Roadmap

Current Software Features:

• Both run IOS-XR 7.x

• Segment routing support

• Model-driven telemetry

Future Development:

• ASR-9006-AC prioritized for:

• 400G readiness

• Cloud-scale routing

• Advanced analytics

• ASR-9001 focused on:

• Security enhancements

• Basic feature updates

Final Recommendation

Choose ASR-9001 When:
✔ Cell site or small POP deployment
✔ Budget under $40,000
✔ Fixed capacity requirements
✔ Limited rack space

Select ASR-9006-AC When:
✔ Core network aggregation
✔ Need 100G+ interfaces
✔ Multi-service environment
✔ Future scalability required

Implementation Strategy:
Deploy ASR-9006-AC at network cores and ASR-9001 at edge locations to balance performance and cost efficiency across the infrastructure.

Key Differentiators:

1. Scalability: ASR-9006-AC supports 3x more interfaces

2. Redundancy: Full hardware redundancy in 9006 model

3. Services: Advanced carrier features only in 9006

4. Total Capacity: 240G vs 80G forwarding capacity