On 08/28/2010 02:23 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On the other hand, it is disappointing that the sup2t has taken so long to
materialise.
Right. That lengthy arrival has made some of the "higher performance"
figures for the new device look very weak. 80gig/slot on a 9-slot
chassis is still only 64 line-rate 10gig ports - woo, how exciting.
As for the original question:
I note that we've been told "monolithic is being phased out" a couple of
times; it was said about SXH, more so about SXI and the publicly
accessible sup2t info says it as well. We all know how the first two
panned out. I suspect Cisco have learned their lesson.
I suspect modular IOS is dead, in the form we were originally promised
it. That is to say, the model for resilience and incremental software
upgrade going forward is dual-sup / ISSU-based. Any modularity features
that *do* make it into IOS will be purely for the IOS developers
benefit, and will provide little specific features that users can
access. The dual-sup model has obvious profit benefits for Cisco.
Sadly, my experience with dual-sup for resilience thus far has been
so-so. Since SXI and MPLS SSO, we've had a couple of crashes which
thanks to SSO meant no loss of service. But we've had a couple more
where either a) FIB corruption propagated with the SSO, so a reload was
eventually necessary or b) the SSO event crashed both sups, dropping the
box to ROMMON. So it's ok, not great. This is unfortunate given the high
cost a 2nd sup entails; for that money I'd want slightly better
reliability. We're aiming to complete our dual-attachment programme and
then let HSRP/STP solve the problem, and ditch/re-use the 2nd sup.
Still, sup2T is still a little way off; who knows what it will
eventually boot? Only Cisco.
Cheers,
Phil
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
