[c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY

2013-10-02 Thread Tim Durack
Anyone running C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY? We are running into some possible CEF bugs, and the response we are getting from TAC is 15.1SY is buggy, you should be running 12.2SX. I find that response unacceptable, but maybe I am in the minority. Feedback on/off list is fine. -- Tim:

[c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY, uRPF with ACL, CoPP

2013-10-02 Thread Tim Durack
C6K, SUP720 (mix of 3B, 3BXL, 3C, 3CXL), running 15.1SY. We have enabled uRPF with ACL exceptions to support DHCP relay (plus mls ip cef rpf hw-enable-rpf-acl). This works as expected. If we enable CoPP, the ACL exceptions for uRPF stop working. I can't find a good explanation for this, and TAC

Re: [c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY, uRPF with ACL, CoPP

2013-10-02 Thread Phil Mayers
On 02/10/13 18:20, Tim Durack wrote: C6K, SUP720 (mix of 3B, 3BXL, 3C, 3CXL), running 15.1SY. We have enabled uRPF with ACL exceptions to support DHCP relay (plus mls ip cef rpf hw-enable-rpf-acl). This works as expected. If we enable CoPP, the ACL exceptions for uRPF stop working. I can't

Re: [c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY

2013-10-02 Thread Phil Mayers
On 02/10/13 18:16, Tim Durack wrote: Anyone running C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY? Yes. We are running into some possible CEF bugs, and the response we are getting from TAC is 15.1SY is buggy, you should be running 12.2SX. Yikes. That's quite a terrifying response, and yes, absolutely unacceptable.

Re: [c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY

2013-10-02 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 01:16:04PM -0400, Tim Durack wrote: Anyone running C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY? We are running into some possible CEF bugs, and the response we are getting from TAC is 15.1SY is buggy, you should be running 12.2SX. I find that response unacceptable, but maybe I am in

Re: [c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY, uRPF with ACL, CoPP

2013-10-02 Thread Tim Durack
Appears to have stopped working. Once CoPP is enabled, I no longer see CEF-Drop-Suppress: Packet from IP via Vlan824 -- ACL check debug messages. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: On 02/10/13 18:20, Tim Durack wrote: C6K, SUP720 (mix of 3B, 3BXL, 3C,

Re: [c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY, uRPF with ACL, CoPP

2013-10-02 Thread Phil Mayers
On 02/10/13 18:32, Tim Durack wrote: Appears to have stopped working. Once CoPP is enabled, I no longer see CEF-Drop-Suppress: Packet from IP via Vlan824 -- ACL check debug messages. If you do: sh vlan internal usage | inc Control ...to get the CoPP vlan, then: remote command switch sh tcam

Re: [c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY, uRPF with ACL, CoPP

2013-10-02 Thread Tim Durack
Not tested on older IOS. Let me try the tcam test. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: On 02/10/13 18:32, Tim Durack wrote: Appears to have stopped working. Once CoPP is enabled, I no longer see CEF-Drop-Suppress: Packet from IP via Vlan824 -- ACL

Re: [c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY

2013-10-02 Thread Tim Durack
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: What specific problems are you having, and which exact SY release are you on? What mix of linecards/traffic? Traffic: mix of enterprise and internet. Linecards, nothing very exotic: WS-X6748-SFP and WS-X6708-10G-3C.

Re: [c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY

2013-10-02 Thread Phil Mayers
On 02/10/13 18:31, Phil Mayers wrote: On 02/10/13 18:16, Tim Durack wrote: Anyone running C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY? Yes. I should have been clearer here - we're on SY1, not SYplain ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY

2013-10-02 Thread A . L . M . Buxey
Hi, We are running into some possible CEF bugs, and the response we are getting from TAC is 15.1SY is buggy, you should be running 12.2SX. thats poor. we've had simialr for other devices. I point them to the open caveats for the older version and the fact we were exposed to those bugs - and

Re: [c-nsp] C6K, SUP720, 15.1SY

2013-10-02 Thread Mark Tinka
On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 07:32:28 PM Gert Doering wrote: And indeed, I find that response unacceptable, especially given that 15.x is supposed the new heaven of well-coordinated and bug-free IOS releases... Evidence, perhaps, that folk inside Cisco don't all agree on the new strategy.