I would have to disagree -- while there are some features shared by most configurations, there's enough implementations using particular 'knobs' that a less than complete feature set would leave the majority of network engineers frustrated. For example, pick the less than complete implementation of BFD.
Frank -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Dobbins Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:18 AM To: Cisco-nsp Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ISR G2 "multicore"? On Oct 28, 2009, at 7:53 PM, James Weathersby (jweather) wrote: > A lot of it has to do with the different roles the routers play. The smartest/sanest thing to do, IMHO, would be to work at migrating to NX-OS, feature-set by feature-set. It's by far the cleanest and best-designed OS platform Cisco have come out with to date. And, yes, whilst there are 4500+ features in IOS, the overwhelming majority of customers use a miniscule fraction of them. The idea would be to start with major features and gradually work towards minor ones, which would allow customers who don't need the more esoteric features to migrate over to the better/cleaner/more stable OS - which would also end up reducing the burden on account teams, TAC, et. al. This probably won't happen due to NIH/BU politics, but it would sure be nice, heh. ;> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <[email protected]> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Sorry, sometimes I mistake your existential crises for technical insights. -- xkcd #625 _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
