On Monday, March 14, 2011 07:08:20 PM Eric Van Tol wrote: > I tested the ME3600X a few months ago and it was > impressive, but the lack of IPv6 (really?!)...
Yes, no native v6 on Day One is a pain. But we knew this when the box was being developed. Cisco have continued to insist that basic v6 will become available at the end of 2011. This is fine with us. For the time being, we'll tunnel customers via 6-in-4 to our Aggregation routers. When ME3600X code comes out with native v6, we'll just move the customer's services off the Aggregation and on to the ME3600X, to live side-by-side with v4. It's worth the wait, given the promise/future of the platform. > and lack of > ingress DSCP remarking was a temporary showstopper. > Primarily, the ingress DSCP marking was the kick in the > nuts. Has this been implemented into this platform yet? Hmmh, we only started testing DSCP ingress marking after upgrading to 12.2(52)EY1. In this release, ingress DSCP marking works. The problem is we can't seem to have an ingress policer + any 'set' command at the same time. I'm pinging my SE on that to figure out if it's a code or hardware issue. I'm hoping for the former, lest someone is going to get it :-). > The impression I got from the product manager when I > spoke to him was that it was not on the roadmap, but > *could* be added later. We spent some time with the "box owner". Lots of cool features coming out. I didn't get any impression a feature like this could be problematic. Like I mentioned, we have it working now, but without an ingress policer. The ME3600X is a really solid platform. So far, it's working a lot more like a router than a switch. We like that! We like that very much! Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
