On Sunday, August 21, 2011 01:55:35 PM John Elliot wrote: > Thanks - Can you please elaborate on how you are running > them as redundant pairs(As this is what we are wanting > to do) - interchassis HA, or something else?
For the border/peering routers, there's no (in)direct communication between the different chassis. Just regular IP routing where the edge routers in the network choose which border router to use for exit, e.t.c. However, we're deploying some NAT services and will be implementing the inter-chassis NAT redundancy feature across 2x ASR1006's, to allow for session state on the backup NAT router should the main one fail. > Have you come across any "gotchas" on the asr's...having > never touched/seen XE, how does it compare to standard > ios? Hardware-wise, not really. We've been lucky that all the units we've got haven't failed in any way. The biggest problem with the ASR1000 is IOS XE. We've been running the box since IOS XE 2.4, and that had a number of key features missing when compared to something like 12.2(33)SR*, which is what IOS XE is based on. That said, we're now running IOS XE 3.3.1S and it has greatly improved. We continue to use this platform because all the features we need do not require any additional hardware, so we know those missing features will come eventually. One of the biggest areas for us that were lacking was QoS, but it's getting there - simple things like marking statistics for service policies has only just become available (and requires a special command to actually enable it). But otherwise, all in all, we're happy, and will be buying more ASR1000's. I think they'll be as popular the 7200's, just with more horsepower. > Much appreciated on the software redundancy tip! Sure! 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/
