Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-HX IDPROM FIELD FORMAT ERROR

@puck.nether.net > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:36:18 -0500 > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-HX IDPROM FIELD FORMAT ERROR > Not sure what you mean by "brick" ? I have a 1002-HX running 16.6.4, > similar output as yours and I have 3+ years of uptime and about 20

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-HX IDPROM FIELD FORMAT ERROR

--- Begin Message --- Not sure what you mean by "brick" ? I have a 1002-HX running 16.6.4, similar output as yours and I have 3+ years of uptime and about 20G+ traffic rolling through it... On 12/15/2021 2:11 PM, Dave Peters - Terabit Systems wrote: There are some Cisco bugs for other units

[c-nsp] ASR1002-HX IDPROM FIELD FORMAT ERROR

Hi all-- I've got an ASR here, version 16.06.03 with the IDPROM FIELD FORMAT ERROR (details below). There are some Cisco bugs for other units indicating this is a factory mistake that doesn't affect the function of those units, but I can't find anything on these ASRs. Have I got a brick on my

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X + SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 (10gb)

clean the fiber. On Thursday, September 5, 2019, Sheremet Roman wrote: > Hi, > > Yep we change card to brand new and update our IOS, now looks best > now: > > ASR1002#sh platform | in 10G > 0/3 SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 ok1w0d > > But we have one more problem, media

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X + SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 (10gb)

Hi, Yep we change card to brand new and update our IOS, now looks best now: ASR1002#sh platform | in 10G 0/3 SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 ok1w0d But we have one more problem, media errors: ASR1002# sh int TenGigabitEthernet 0/3/0 | in err 227 input errors, 181 CRC,

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X + SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 (10gb)

has this card worked in a different chassis? i suspect a bad card On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Andrew K. wrote: > I have this same issue with this same behavior. A reboot was also required > to get it to detect. The kicker is we have one of these cards in the > chassis working already. TAC

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X + SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 (10gb)

I have this same issue with this same behavior. A reboot was also required to get it to detect.  The kicker is we have one of these cards in the chassis working already. TAC told me to RMA the SPA. We are sending a second SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 that was tested in an ASR1002 (not an X, all we had to

[c-nsp] ASR1002-X + SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 (10gb)

Hi, We have Cisco ASR1002-X Cisco IOS Software, IOS-XE Software (X86_64_LINUX_IOSD-UNIVERSAL-M), Version 15.3(2)S1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) IOS XE Version: 03.09.01.S and 10g module SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 So, module wont work, anyone use same? OIR not detect this module automatically but after

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X BRAS/BNG and shaping via RADIUS CoA

er.net] On Behalf Of > Divo Zito > Sent: mercoledì 27 settembre 2017 14:56 > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X BRAS/BNG and shaping via RADIUS CoA > > Hello, > > I need to buy a new BRAS/BNG to terminate about 10K PPPoEoQinQ dual- > stacked users. > >

[c-nsp] ASR1002-X BRAS/BNG and shaping via RADIUS CoA

Hello, I need to buy a new BRAS/BNG to terminate about 10K PPPoEoQinQ dual-stacked users. I've found a platform that looks fine, ASR1002-X with SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 cards, but I wonder if it is able to handle my traffic shaping needs. I'll use 802.1q double tagged ambiguous interfaces:

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 -- interface stops passing IPv4 traffic?

I've hit this CSCva35619 so that matches up. Upgraded at the time to 03.16.04a extended support release. Worked perfectly! Forwarding correctly ever since Sent from my portable email sender Please excuse shorter messages > On 19/05/2017, at 21:09, Paul Sherratt wrote: > >

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 -- interface stops passing IPv4 traffic?

Thanks Paul -- this appears to be the exact issue. I just didn't have enough experience with the platform to know to look here. John On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:09:18PM +0100, Paul Sherratt wrote: > Hi John, > > This sounds like it may be an input queue wedge on the interface, which is

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 -- interface stops passing IPv4 traffic?

Hi John, This sounds like it may be an input queue wedge on the interface, which is only fixed with a reload. I've seen CVE-2016-1478 / CSCva35619 hit a few people. If you're running an affected version you'll need to upgrade or workaround. To verify, check queue size in "show interface"

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 -- interface stops passing IPv4 traffic?

...@custodiandc.com http://www.CustodianDC.com -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of John Osmon Sent: 19 May 2017 05:44 To: Cisco Network Service Providers <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: [c-nsp] ASR1002 -- interface stops p

[c-nsp] ASR1002 -- interface stops passing IPv4 traffic?

I've never found an IOS device I couldn't tame with the help of Usenet and then google. However, I'm new to the ASR1000 and IOS-XE, and I'm running into something I've never seen before. I've got GigE ports that will pass traffic, and then suddenly stop. The interface still shows up/up, but you

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 LNS scaling

Are you running an ASR1002 or ASR1002-X as the production LNS platform? We use the 1002-X and don't have this problem (3.16.4aS). I wouldn't recommend the non-X versions as they don't scale so well. Also the ASR1002-X specifically of all the -X versions has additional limitations (when used as

[c-nsp] ASR1002 LNS scaling

Hi all, We're trying to migrate some broadband users to an ASR1002, but seem to be having some problems relating to scalability for PPPoVPDN. The session setup rate seems to be very poor - our configuration is somewhat complex, but we still found that the same numbers worked OK on other ASR1K

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds Kingston all the way. At least for a while I know they were the company having their memory rebranded. Not sure if this is still the case but have had very good luck with their memory modules in Cisco devices

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Adam Greene Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 1:51 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds Thanks, guys, for all the feedback. Summary: - ASR1002-X with default processor and 8GB RAM is plenty for (2) full BGP

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Adam Greene Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 1:51 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds Thanks, guys, for all the feedback. Summary: - ASR1002-X with default processor and 8GB RAM is plenty for (2

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds Kingston all the way. At least for a while I know they were the company having their memory rebranded. Not sure if this is still the case but have had very good luck with their memory modules in Cisco devices. On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Adam

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

Good to know. Thanks, Scott. Unfortunately, it looks like Kingston does not carry RAM for the ASR1002-X Have used NHR ram (Now curvature) in ASR1K's, and no issues so far...sorry, dont know what brand they use. Cheers.

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

with using non-Cisco RAM? Is it generally just as reliable as the Cisco stuff? Thanks again, Adam -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 1:40 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

It's usually same memory from same vendor/supplier just different label. On 20.03.2015 20:51, Adam Greene wrote: Besides the risk of not being able to obtain support from Cisco (and maybe being billed by them) if a problem is traced to the third-party RAM

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

I have never used Cisco’s ram for upgrades and never been bitten by this. The memory is usually the same memory. At one point I remember seeing a Kingston rebranded Cisco memory module for sale for several thousand dollars and the Kingston equivalent was 100 and change. Cisco memory is one

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

I use it in ASR1001's - zero issues Besides the risk of not being able to obtain support from Cisco (and maybe being billed by them) if a problem is traced to the third-party RAM (http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/prod_warranty09186a00800b5594.html), does anyone see any issue with using

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

Awesome. Good to know. Thanks again!!! From: CiscoNSP List [mailto:cisconsp_l...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 3:46 PM To: Adam Greene; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: RE: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds I use it in ASR1001's - zero issues Besides the risk

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

On 19/Mar/15 15:57, Lukas Tribus wrote: In my opinion this box should work fine with 8GB RAM both from a memory and CPU perspective, even with 2 or more full feeds. I have ASR1004-RP2s with 8GB RAM doing a similar job (in MPLS VPNs), its fine. ASR1002-X is a refreshed RP2 afaik. RP1 with 4GB

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

On 19/Mar/15 15:19, Adam Greene wrote: - Is 16GB RAM really necessary for (2) full BGP feeds in the real world? Seems like overkill to me. I seem to recall that when soft-reconfiguration inbound is enabled with (2) peers, it in effect causes 1.5x or 2x the amount of RAM to be used.

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

1,000,000 limit is FIB which is only best routes(500K+ routes), RIB only consume RAM. You'll be fine with 8Gb memory, but if you plan to use non-cisco memory, just go with 16Gb its cheap. 16Gb will be enough to store 25M routes as Route-Server last I heard from Cisco. IOSd will only consume half

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

Hi Adam, We have a customer with an ASR1002-X supporting redundant links to the Internet, currently taking only default routes to both in a primary/failover scenario. However, they want to have the absolute best path to all destinations to the Internet, and so are considering taking full

[c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

Hi guys, We have a customer with an ASR1002-X supporting redundant links to the Internet, currently taking only default routes to both in a primary/failover scenario. However, they want to have the absolute best path to all destinations to the Internet, and so are considering taking full

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds Hi Adam, We have a customer with an ASR1002-X supporting redundant links to the Internet, currently taking only default routes to both in a primary/failover scenario. However, they want to have the absolute best path to all

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds

Of Lukas Tribus Sent: den 19 mars 2015 14:57 To: Adam Greene; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X (2) full BGP feeds Hi Adam, We have a customer with an ASR1002-X supporting redundant links to the Internet, currently taking only default routes to both in a primary/failover

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X vs ASR9001

On Friday, April 26, 2013 05:25:30 PM Drew Weaver wrote: The MX80 has done everything we've needed it to do; you just get there in a different way. We've ordered and deployed the MX80's more often because the local Cisco partner is about higher margin or nothing at all. Don't get it... I've

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X vs ASR9001

] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:41 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X vs ASR9001 On 25/04/2013 22:03, Drew Weaver wrote: We love the ASR9001 too and for the price there is nothing else like it. =) the mx80 preceded it by a couple of years

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X vs ASR9001

I understand its CPU not that fast as XEON on ASR1K-RP2, but just wondering how fast it is for bgp full view convergence? On 4/25/13 1:26 AM, LavoJM wrote: Anyway, the 9k is a powerhouse and we love them. Highly recommended. ___ cisco-nsp mailing

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X vs ASR9001

On 24/04/2013 23:11, Dan Brisson wrote: It only samples though, if I remember correctly. You can configure 1:1, but you run the risk of overrunning it. the asr9001 can cache up to 1m netflow entries, which is the same as larger asr9k units and also the same as the sup2txl. If you're shipping

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X vs ASR9001

We love the ASR9001 too and for the price there is nothing else like it. =) -Drew -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nikolay Shopik Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:41 PM To: Cisco Network Service Providers Subject: [c-nsp

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X vs ASR9001

On 25/04/2013 22:03, Drew Weaver wrote: We love the ASR9001 too and for the price there is nothing else like it. =) the mx80 preceded it by a couple of years. The fact that the mx80 sold like hotcakes forced cisco into producing the asr9001, as far as I could tell. But yes, it's a great router

[c-nsp] ASR1002-X vs ASR9001

Hey guys, So we are looking for router which have 10Gbe interfaces (able push 10-20Gbit), with mostly basic stuff, full bgp, dot1.q. So at first I've look into 1002-X, which is seems fit use enough (with license upgrade). Looking into GPL price I see asr9001 will be much cheaper than fully

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X vs ASR9001

On 24/04/2013 20:41, Nikolay Shopik wrote: I suppose netflow not possible on ASR9001? netflow (v9) works fine on asr9001. Nick ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-X vs ASR9001

It only samples though, if I remember correctly. You can configure 1:1, but you run the risk of overrunning it. -dan On 4/24/13 4:32 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 24/04/2013 20:41, Nikolay Shopik wrote: I suppose netflow not possible on ASR9001? netflow (v9) works fine on asr9001. Nick

[c-nsp] asr1002-f monitor esp performance

Is it possible to monitor the performance of the ESP in the ASR 1000 series. We have the asr 1002-F andThe ESP is listed at 2.5Gbps. We would like to see when were getting close to that. We use this command on a asr 1001 show platform hardware qfp active datapath utilization The bottom line

Re: [c-nsp] asr1002-f monitor esp performance

You can use the command show platform hardware qfp active datapath utilization to see current QFP/ESP utilization. From an SNMP perspective you're looking for CISCO-ENTITY-QFP-MIB http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/asr1000/mib/guide/asr1mib3.html#wp2129069 which will be OID

Re: [c-nsp] asr1002-f monitor esp performance

On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:18 PM, MKS wrote: The bottom line shows processing load in % Another way is via NetFlow. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of

[c-nsp] asr1002-f monitor esp performance

Is it possible to monitor the performance of the ESP in the ASR 1000 series. We have the asr 1002-F andThe ESP is listed at 2.5Gbps. We would like to see when were getting close to that. -- Marc ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 + ASR 1004

/http://www.civica.co.uk/ -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: 30 January 2012 07:26 To: CiscoNSP_list CiscoNSP_list Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 + ASR 1004 On Monday

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 + ASR 1004

On Monday, January 30, 2012 11:15:19 PM Ian Hiddleston wrote: We're running some of the ASR1002 modular units in our network at the moment and are quite happy with them so far. I'm more tempted to run pairs of 1002's than 1006's with dual RP, but that's just me. In peering/transit roles,

[c-nsp] ASR1002 + ASR 1004

Hi Guys, Looking at getting the above ASR's, and was hoping someone can explain the devices in layman's terms ;) We have ESP, SPA Processor(SIP) and route processor (+SPA slots) The 1002 has an integrated Route processor(RP1), integrated SIP(SPA processor), and can have either the 5Gb or

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 + ASR 1004

On Monday, January 30, 2012 10:23:04 AM CiscoNSP_list CiscoNSP_list wrote: We have ESP,... Yep, this provides the centralized data plane forwarding function. SPA Processor(SIP)... Yep, this provides the carriage for the SPA's, as well some of the packet processing and management

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 + ASR 1004

Thanks Mark - much appreciated! The 1004 has nothing integrated, so would require an route processor(RP1 or RP2), SIP10, ESP (10Gb or 20Gb), and has 8 SPA slots for wan modules? Yes, but it also supports the SIP40, as do the ASR1006 and ASR1013. So the 1004 supports ESP10 or 20

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 + ASR 1004

On Monday, January 30, 2012 12:15:06 PM CiscoNSP_list CiscoNSP_list wrote: So the 1004 supports ESP10 or 20 (So up to 20Gb), but also supports the SIP40(40Gb) - The 1004 can only do up to 20Gb though correct? So what does the SIP40 provide?(40Gb aggregate bandwidth per slot...but the ESP20

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 + ASR 1004

Thanks again Mark! So the 1004 supports ESP10 or 20 (So up to 20Gb), but also supports the SIP40(40Gb) - The 1004 can only do up to 20Gb though correct? So what does the SIP40 provide?(40Gb aggregate bandwidth per slot...but the ESP20 only can do 20Gb?) There is an ESP40 as well.

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 + ASR 1004

On Monday, January 30, 2012 01:19:55 PM CiscoNSP_list CiscoNSP_list wrote: The product page for the 1004 states it only supports the ESP20 though?(Unless this is not up to date info) http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9343/prod_models_c omparison.html That must be old news. These look

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 + ASR 1004

On Monday, January 30, 2012 01:19:55 PM CiscoNSP_list CiscoNSP_list wrote: The product page for the 1004 states it only supports the ESP20 though?(Unless this is not up to date info) http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9343/prod_models_c omparison.html That must be old news.

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 + ASR 1004

On Monday, January 30, 2012 03:06:24 PM CiscoNSP_list CiscoNSP_list wrote: Got it - so they are installed in slots 3+4 (The top 2 on the 1004), which both support 4 SPA's I suppose so, we've never bought the ASR1004 because I think that's just tantalizing one's self :-). We just always go

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002-F lsmpi_io memory usage

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Rens wrote: Dear all, Is it normal that the show processes memory shows so little free memory for lsmpi_io? Yes, it is completely normal -- similar to how it's normal for the Fast pool on a GSR/GRP or 7500/RSP to have very little free memory. The analogy ends there.

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Rens r...@autempspourmoi.be wrote: Did anyone actually give any recommendations? I'm looking for the same advice to run BGP, OSPF maybe L2TPv3 later Hi Rens - sorry for late reply as I was on vacation. I'm running

[c-nsp] ASR1002-F lsmpi_io memory usage

Dear all, Is it normal that the show processes memory shows so little free memory for lsmpi_io? Processor Pool Total: 1821524196 Used: 156947532 Free: 1664576664 lsmpi_io Pool Total:6295088 Used:6294116 Free:972 Regards, Rens

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002

@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] ASR1002 Anyone have recommendations on solid IOS XE code for ASR 1002 that's just doing: - BGP - VRF's - Many sub-interfaces and ACL's It shipped with 02.04.02.122-33.XND2.bin Thanks, Kenny ___ cisco-nsp mailing list

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002

- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Kenny Sallee Sent: jeudi 7 janvier 2010 1:49 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] ASR1002 Anyone have recommendations on solid IOS XE code for ASR 1002 that's just doing: - BGP - VRF's

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002

Nobody running 2.6? L2TPv3 available since 2.6 _ From: mounir.moha...@gmail.com [mailto:mounir.moha...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mounir Mohamed Sent: jeudi 24 juin 2010 13:44 To: Rens Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 Hi Rens, We are running the same

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002

On Thursday 24 June 2010 08:43:43 pm Rens wrote: Nobody running 2.6? We are running IOS XE 2.6 a.k.a 12.2(33)XNF. No major dramas save for other stuff I've complained about in the past. BGP, IS-IS, IPv6, MPLS, uRPF, 802.1AX (no ingress QoS support on LACP bundles, though) all seem to work

[c-nsp] ASR1002

Anyone have recommendations on solid IOS XE code for ASR 1002 that's just doing: - BGP - VRF's - Many sub-interfaces and ACL's It shipped with 02.04.02.122-33.XND2.bin Thanks, Kenny ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 and SFP-GE-T Issue

On (2008-12-04 23:04 +0100), Daniel Roesen wrote: On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 04:17:58PM -0500, Mojtaba Kia wrote: Attempting to install a SFP-GE-T transceiver on an ASR1002 router's built-in GE port. The lead time to get Factory SFPs from Cisco is about 2-3 weeks, got my hand on couple of

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 and SFP-GE-T Issue

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Saku Ytti) wrote: There are two types of cu-SFP from Cisco also, both work in say 7600/LAN cards, but only one of them work in SIP/SPA, ES20. I'm really curious what is the difference. Hmm, I wouldn't know. Yet: I've tried two handsful of SFPs from the big drawer with all

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 and SFP-GE-T Issue

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:19:16 +0200, Saku Ytti wrote On (2008-12-04 23:04 +0100), Daniel Roesen wrote: On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 04:17:58PM -0500, Mojtaba Kia wrote: Attempting to install a SFP-GE-T transceiver on an ASR1002 router's built-in GE port. The lead time to get Factory SFPs

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 and SFP-GE-T Issue

On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 08:03:27PM +0100, Marian ??urkovi?? wrote: One type emulates fiber SFP and should work in all cases (at 1 Gbps) as the port does not have to perform anything special. The other type can do 10/100/1000, but the port must support SGMII mode which is probably not

[c-nsp] ASR1002 and SFP-GE-T Issue

Attempting to install a SFP-GE-T transceiver on an ASR1002 router's built-in GE port. The lead time to get Factory SFPs from Cisco is about 2-3 weeks, got my hand on couple of third-party vendor SFP-GE-T transceivers and even though the router recognize the SFP , layer and II will not come up. Has

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002 and SFP-GE-T Issue

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 04:17:58PM -0500, Mojtaba Kia wrote: Attempting to install a SFP-GE-T transceiver on an ASR1002 router's built-in GE port. The lead time to get Factory SFPs from Cisco is about 2-3 weeks, got my hand on couple of third-party vendor SFP-GE-T transceivers and even though

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002

Rinse Kloek (Solcon) wrote: We are looking for a replacement for our 7200 BRAS routers. The ASR1002 looks promising: - Dual IOS (Software Redundancy / Much easier upgrading) Do you trust that stuff to work properly so early? I wouldn't! - Standaard 4 GE ports - 6-8 Mpps Assuming zero feature

[c-nsp] ASR1002

We are looking for a replacement for our 7200 BRAS routers. The ASR1002 looks promising: - Dual IOS (Software Redundancy / Much easier upgrading) - Standaard 4 GE ports - 6-8 Mpps - Front to back airflow in stead of side air flow - Much hardware features like QOS / SBC / NBAR Anybody some

Re: [c-nsp] ASR1002

I've got one customer running a ASR 1006 and seems to be working just fine on their 100 mb metro-e link; running 12.2(33) XNA - using basic EIGRP and QoS features.. I've heard unconfirmed claims of some software instability but maybe there's more people out there who have run into them. On Mon,