On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 10:31, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> CSCvk35460 is now marked as a duplicate of CSCvc27889, which has a
> different trigger (reload, as opposed to long uptime).
> CSCvc27889 is fixed in 15.5(3)S6 (XE 3.16.6).
>
> Apparently the symptoms of CSCvk35460 sound somehow similar to those
Hello,
CSCvk35460 is now marked as a duplicate of CSCvc27889, which has a
different trigger (reload, as opposed to long uptime).
CSCvc27889 is fixed in 15.5(3)S6 (XE 3.16.6).
Apparently the symptoms of CSCvk35460 sound somehow similar to those
of CSCvc27889 to Cisco, although I've yet to get a
You are absolutely right.
Worked quite extensively with those as RR / small MPLS-PE for colos, They were
more than OJ.
For an entry-level box, it will perform all basic IP/MPLS stuff with very
decent performance in an interesting form factor.
Maybe its’ little brother, CES would perform
> Extreme (ex-Brocade) CER-RT
I'd heard Extreme were looking to EOL/EOS that box.
It's too slow for 2019 anyway and has some pretty critical bugs that I don't
think can be fixed.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On 28/Jan/19 08:40, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote:
>
> Extreme (ex-Brocade) CER-RT
The NetIron CES/CER 2000 boxes were certainly worthy competitors back in
2009 - 2011. But I felt like they stopped getting developed after that,
and while I considered them for FTTH services several years ago,
Envoyé de mon iPhone
> Le 28 janv. 2019 à 07:15, Mark Tinka a écrit :
>
>
>
>> On 27/Jan/19 14:08, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
>>
>> While not an option everywhere in the world, I'm getting more and more
>> impressed with what Huawei has to offer (NE05E for this job).
>
> Yeah... :-\.
>
On 27/Jan/19 14:08, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> While not an option everywhere in the world, I'm getting more and more
> impressed with what Huawei has to offer (NE05E for this job).
Yeah... :-\.
> And then there is Nokia/ALU which also has some potential contenders (even
> if they are
-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
[mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 9:58 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 is a ticking timebomb (CSCvk35460)
On 26/Jan/19 17:15, James Jun wrote:
> One of the other reasons we're looking to phase
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 07:58:17AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> But what would you replace it with? What else is out there?
>
To Nick's suggestion, we should probably start looking at Nokia. I've seen
Level3/CenturyLink using
SAS boxes at smaller data centers to aggregate 1GE customers.
--- Begin Message ---
Nokia has the SAS-Mxp, which is a little pricier, but similar specs.
there’s also the Cisco NCS540, which we are looking as to replace / augment
920s in the field for higher capacity services. Nokia’s competitor to it, the
7250xre is supposedly shipping in early 2019.
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019, at 06:58, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> But what would you replace it with? What else is out there?
While not an option everywhere in the world, I'm getting more and more
impressed with what Huawei has to offer (NE05E for this job). And then there is
Nokia/ALU which also has some
On 26/Jan/19 17:15, James Jun wrote:
> One of the other reasons we're looking to phase out ASR920s over time is the
> small
> buffers.
>
> We also had an issue when oversubsribing shared on-chip buffers on the box
> (by using child
> policy-map to assign 100% queue on all ports), where
> > Anyone else run the NCS540 in the Edge role and are there any major
> > limitations except the 128K ipv4 prefix limit?
>
> That Broadcom chipset put me off of the NCS540.
That's what concerns me too.
One of the other reasons we're looking to phase out ASR920s over time is the
small
On 25/Jan/19 21:24, Gustav Ulander wrote:
>
> I'm a little bit interested in the NCS-540 for this segment although the
> prefix side is a bit thin. I haven't played with it yet though.
> Anyone else run the NCS540 in the Edge role and are there any major
> limitations except the 128K ipv4
On 24/Jan/19 21:12, James Jun wrote:
> May be this is good time to re-hash discussion about replacing ASR920s with
> something else for 1GE aggregation.
I don't think that's a good-enough reason to oust the box. It's a bug
that "can" be fixed. Focus should be on getting Cisco to see that
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 06:53:15PM +, James Bensley wrote:
>
> You could really blow my mind and PROACTIVELY reach out to such a
> customer and say "Hay, you're going to get hit by a nasty bug soon,
> lets work together; You let me grab some debug info from your router
> to try and fine the
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 16:16, David White, Jr. (dwhitejr) via
cisco-nsp wrote:
> Unfortunately, 'Terminated' in this case has double meanings. It in
> fact does mean exactly what you have stated, 'a conscious decision was
> made not to fix this bug'. However, it /also/ means 'Unreproducible -
>
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:15:44AM -0500, David White, Jr. (dwhitejr) via
cisco-nsp wrote:
> Unfortunately, 'Terminated' in this case has double meanings. It in
> fact does mean exactly what you have stated, 'a conscious decision was
> made not to fix this bug'. However, it /also/ means
Reuben
Subject:
Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 is a ticking timebomb (CSCvk35460)
From:
Reuben Farrelly
Date:
1/23/2019, 5:42 PM
--- End Message ---
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco
--- Begin Message ---
On 24/01/2019 6:23 am, Giles Coochey wrote:
I think the tack the OP was meant to imply that Cisco Bughunt for issues
leaves a lot to be desired, with terse messages attached to bugs,
incomplete versions affected, etc...
The thing that sends me off the deep end with bugs
On 23/01/2019 16:59, David White, Jr. (dwhitejr) via cisco-nsp wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry to hear you are being impacted by this issue. I took a look at
the bug, and it is in a holding pattern, waiting until we can get some
logs from an impacted device - in order to root cause it. Can I ask
--- Begin Message ---
Hi All,
Sorry to hear you are being impacted by this issue. I took a look at
the bug, and it is in a holding pattern, waiting until we can get some
logs from an impacted device - in order to root cause it. Can I ask
that anyone impacted please open a TAC case so they
...answering to Lucas and James:
We have EXACTLY the same behavior. And it's worrying that the bug notes
do not include all this info.
We have hundreds of these boxes in our networks but just recently we
approached this time limit.
Until now ALL the boxes that have passed the time limit have
>
> Has anyone been hit by CSCvk35460?
We have definitely been hit by this bug on two ASR920s running 03.16.02aS with
over 2 years of uptime.
The symptoms and effect of the bug from our observation include:
- packets continue to forward, so there is no immediate disruption to traffic
-
Hello,
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 13:37, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone been hit by CSCvk35460?
>
> Symptom:
> counter not increasing under show interface even though packets are
> being forwarded normally
>
> Conditions:
> ASR920 is running for nearly 889 days
>
> Workaround:
>
Has anyone been hit by CSCvk35460?
Symptom:
counter not increasing under show interface even though packets are
being forwarded normally
Conditions:
ASR920 is running for nearly 889 days
Workaround:
none
It seems strange that Cisco has terminated it as non-reproducible,
unless all customers
26 matches
Mail list logo
