I refuse to buy in to ’Smart Licensing’ and ‘Port Licensing’. So far, we have been able to avoid buying from vendors who practice such anti-customer policies.
I refuse to buy products with licensing schemes that require the equipment to ‘phone home’ or where a vendor through an error could remotely disable feature sets or the unit itself. (License keys, as implemented prior to IOS V15 are tolerable) I’m willing to purchase equipment from a vendor that is not as spiffy as J or C as long as it has an acceptable licensing policy and functionally works. That means we don’t get the nifty command language of Juniper with commit/rollback… I also refuse to purchase equipment that requires an ‘app’ or GUI program to configure. I demand a 9 pin serial connector (or a Cisco pinout RJ45) and a CLI. I think customers ought to stick to their guns and refuse to buy equipment from vendors that try to push this crap. Joe Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications [email protected] 650-207-0372 cell 650-213-1302 office 650-969-2124 fax > On Feb 24, 2021, at 3:42 AM, Shawn L <[email protected]> wrote: > > Another member just sent a question about smart licensing, and it got me > thinking that I should post my current issue here and see if anyone has > seen this before, or if I'm crazy (or Cisco is). > > Last summer I purchased 6 ASR920-12SZ-D routers/switches. These are the > ones with 12 10-gig ports. Despite some initial weirdness, port issues, > etc. they've actually worked rather well for us. Last week, one of them > started randomly dropping offline. After investigation, Cisco replaced > it. Here's where the fun starts. > > It almost looks like Cisco changed the licensing model for these between > when we purchased them and when we received our RMA. Is that possible? > > All of our (I'll call them old) routers had the default port licenses and > an Advanced Metro license. All 12 ports are usable at 1 gig, and 4 will > operate at 10 gig. I have 5 that are running quite happily like this at > remote pops right now. > > On the new router that was sent, only 6 ports are operational. The other 6 > are disabled, and won't enable, giving me license error when I try. > Cisco's telling me that the licenses on both the new and old routers match, > so their job is done. > > I don't think I'm crazy (but if you are, would you know) -- I have the doc > from cisco when we originally purchased the routers showing what license > level did what, though interestingly it's no longer on Cisco's website. > The new version of said docs seem to indicate that Cisco is correct and > the default license gives you 6 ports. Which means I need to purchase an > additional license to make my new router behave like the one I RMA-ed. > > This is kind of a long story to ask the question but, does anyone know if > the licensing changed somehow? And if it did, what does that mean for the > routers we've already deployed? > > thanks > > Shawn > _______________________________________________ > 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/
