Upgrade 'em all to EY1 before you do anything :) --
Sent from my mobile device. On 2011-03-30, at 8:32 AM, "Leigh Harrison" <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks, > > I've had a dozen ME3600X's turn up today. I'll let you know how we get on > with them :-) > > LH > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Waris Sagheer (waris) > Sent: 30 March 2011 08:16 > To: [email protected]; Jason Lixfeld; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] New Joiner - ME3600X and tools > > 3400E procedure should work in case of ME3600X. > > Jason, > Thanks for the feedback. > > -EVC IRB will fix this issue in the next release coming out in June 2011. > This limitation at FCS is applicable only if you are planning to use EFP with > SVI. For L2 only, you can add more than one ports to a single bridge-domain. > -I assume the second issue is fixed with the EY1 image? > -What was the SR number for the corrupted IOS? I would like to understand why > RMA was the only option. > -Do you have the SR number for the NMS issue? Do you still the problem with > EY1 image? I'll get the engineering look into this issue. > > -Waris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Edward Salonia > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:03 PM > To: Jason Lixfeld; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] New Joiner - ME3600X and tools > > Forgive me, I don't have any experience with these switches, just ME3400 > series... Is there really no way to fix a corrupt IOS? Can you not simply > interrupt the boot process, drop to ROMMON format flash and tftpdnld the > image again? > > Thanks, > Ed > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Lixfeld <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:55:58 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] New Joiner - ME3600X and tools > > We've deployed about 20 of these so far, and for a first release, they are > solid. They have taken some of the flexible Ethernet service features from > the 7600 ES series line cards and put a distilled feature set onto these > boxes. Makes life so much easier. > > - The biggest issue we've had with the FCS code is that you can't have more > than one port be a member of one bridge domain. This will be fixed in FCS+1 > which, I believe, is due any second now. > - We also ran into a weird BGP issue on 12.2(52)EY where prefixes sourced on > the ME weren't being announced via the update-group and the correct extended > communities weren't being applied. This has only happened to us once on a > box that we forgot to upgrade to EY1. > - There is no way to fix a corrupted IOS. The restore procedure hasn't been > published internally at Cisco yet (at least not that my TAC engineer could > find) so if you brick the box, you have no choice but to get it RMAd for the > time being. > - Make sure your NMS doesn't poll .1.3.6.1.2.1.17.4.3.1.1. You'll crash the > box, immediately :) > > Other than that, I can't think of anything irksome. > > We went through the vendor gambit on these before we bought them. Cisco, > Juniper, MRV, Alcatel, I'm sure there were a few others that I'm forgetting. > The only real competition after the dust settled was Juniper and we opted out > of that mainly because the boxes have a ridiculously deep footprint and as > much as I love JunOS, their stuff just requires too damn much work to get > going. Create a CCC, create bi-directional LSPs, map the LSP to the CCC, map > the CCC to the interface, blah, blah, blah. Cisco's solution is 1 line of > three 3 commands per interface: xconnect <destination_loopback> <vcid>. > Done. Everything else is done under the hood. Easy botton? #winning. > There's no need for things to be as complex as J tends to make them. There > is certainly a time and a place for that many knobs, but not on the edge. No > way. Also, I've heard no end of hassles from a bunch of folks who run these > boxes. > > On 2011-03-28, at 5:17 PM, Leigh Harrison wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback, and yeah, I agree that a lack of IPv6 support is >> slack. We're seeing a keen interest from various customers at the moment. >> >> Has anyone got any happy stories about the ME3600X?!?? >> >> LH >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> [email protected] >> Sent: 28 March 2011 22:00 >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] New Joiner - ME3600X and tools >> >> Back in November when I questioned our Cisco account rep while I was >> purchasing a half dozen of these, I was told ~summer of '11 for IPv6 >> on the ME3600X... I'm sure that's been pushed back based on newer >> feedback it seems people are getting. This is most unfortunate. I >> don't understand how Cisco can ignore IPv6 on newer products like >> this. It is indeed totally unacceptable and does make these L2 only >> having to rely on something else to do IPv6 in L3 the access layer. :( >> >> -Vinny >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Asbjorn >> Hojmark - Lists >> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 3:36 PM >> To: 'Jon Harald Bøvre' >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] New Joiner - ME3600X and tools >> >>> IPv6 supported? No. Probably coming in october this year. >> >> Last I heard was 'sometime 2012' for IPv6 support -- Totally unacceptable >> for any device doing L3 in SP environments, IMO -- so I consider it a >> L2-only box. >> >> -A >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > This email has been scanned by Webroot for the presence of known Viruses and > Spam. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
