Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
Yeap, but we've got a 3x price hike on the ME6500 from our initial
purchase to current quotes, which left us no choice but to evaluate
alternatives.
Ouch. Are you dealing with a partner or Cisco Direct? There isn't any
excuse for the price to go up, period. If you like I could hook you up
with our Cisco Direct guys. If you got your order in this week you
might be a decent discount simply because their fiscal year ends this
month and the sales folks are hungry.
The BFD on SVIs is definitely something that bit me on all my SX/SR
platforms. I still don't have a working solution for that problem.
I would really love to just hear what Cisco says about why BFD on SVIs
are a bad thing. They might have a good point.
What I was told was that it was an "unintended feature". Basically that
means that while it worked it wasn't ever part of the intended design
and wasn't ever tested. It could have adverse affects on other things;
then again it also might not affect anything. They simply wouldn't know
unless they incorporated that into the QA procedures and there has to be
demand for that to happen. So tell your account team every chance you
get. In fact I would recommend having your account team hook you up on
a call with the product manager responsible for BFD support on your
hardware and ask for it yourself (because often times I think requests
like that tend to get overlooked).
It's good to know that Cisco changed the speech regarding this
product. I think that if one uses only as PE (no other P or PEs
relying on it for LDP of a critical backbone), and it uses only 2
uplinks (no ring or mesh, two uplinks to a P backbone), no L3VPN, it
might work. In the mean time, I'm glad that all the 3750-Metro we've
got were operational leases: we will return them all, so I won't have
to write [EMAIL PROTECTED]@ on the customer satisfaction surveys anymore.
Yeah, it's good to know what they're meant for. I was thinking like a
dumbass when I bought a pair of ME6524s for the core in a very small
pop. I didn't know much about the underlying platform and didn't even
think about the TCAM on that box. I was just thinking that they'd be a
decent device for the price and throughput in that small POP and that
they didn't need to be too fancy. I ran out of TCAM back in January
when the global route table exceeded the Sup2's limited reach. I'll be
replacing them in the future and pushing them closer to the edge where
they belong.
The ME3750 was really meant primarily as a PE device but also as a P in
a MetroE access ring. In our training lab the ME3750 was used mainly as
the access edge. Most of the labs used it as a L2 edge switch
essentially but a few labs had us extended the IGP to it, enable MPLS
and push VCs all the way to it. It worked fine, except for when I
skipped an important step in the instructions... They intended for it
to be deployed in GigE rings too. As they put it in the class, fiber is
expensive. You can't home-run every PE to an aggregation router. It's
just not cost-effective or reasonable. But it is cost-effective to have
half a dozen of them ringed together and home-run the edges back to the
aggregation layer (ME6524s or larger hardware. In fact much of the
class dealt with building the access ring, tuning STP/RSTP/MST, etc.
It's a good class if you're interested.
Justin
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
