On 2 February 2016 at 12:47, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, James Bensley wrote: > >> IOS-XR is much needed but jesus christ its been buggy as hell for us on >> the 9000 series routers. > > > Stable, cheap, fast. Pick any two. > > I am not aware of any product the past 10-15 years that didn't have serious > bugs at first customer shipment. If you want something that works, wait 1-2 > years after first customer shipment and try it, then it usually works. Now, > at that time it's not fast and cheap anymore...
This paradigm only goes so far, Cisco have missed some very basic testing indeed. I mean, it looks to us like they've barely tested the code and just shipped it. We've got a nice race condition at the minute an amature programmer could spot. Processes getting stuck in an infinite loop and locking up the CPU. It’s been years since IOS-XR was released on ASR9000's, no excuse now for basic features still not working. The TAC responses aren’t helpful either; things like "running an Inter-AS MPLS Option B and BGP-LU at the same time is not supported" - So we can have labelled VPN routes, or labelled GRT routes but not both? In this day and age! Someone once said to us “Inter-AS MPLS Opt C isn’t supported at all” - which we were running on the PE/ASBR under investigation. We’ve had bucket loads of issues/TAC cases (we are still opening TAC cases at a decent rate). My mind is pretty set on this, their testing has been appalling (I’m obviously moaning at Cisco about this) – I’d like to know what others think. Cheers, James. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
