Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading from 3.0.6 to Denali-16.3.5b

2018-01-17 Thread Christina Klam 
Nick,

When I went from 03.06.05E to the 3.3 pkg it was about 30 - 40 minutes.  Once I 
rebooted into the 3.3 pkg, I had the command "software install file  new 
force auto-rollback 10".  It was after this step that I have the long wait.  I 
really wish I didn't do the rollback as I cannot sit around waiting to type 
"software commit".

Are you saying that this long wait is NOT normal?

Thanks,
Christina
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Cutting" 
To: "C. Klam" , cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:55:25 PM
Subject: RE: Upgrading from 3.0.6 to Denali-16.3.5b

What did you upgrade from? It is the microcode (asic programming) that takes 
the longest time.
I have never waited longer than 45 minutes - but that is on 3.x -> 3.x

Denali is where they added MPLS, which is a major overhaul in this "slow part 
of the upgrade" - the ASIC programming

-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
Christina Klam
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:59 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Upgrading from 3.0.6 to Denali-16.3.5b

This message originates from outside of your organisation.

All,

This is the second Cat3850 that I have tried to upgrade to Denali-16.3.5b.  
Both take hours to go from expanding the files to finishing.  I am on hour two 
for the second switch.  Except for interface status messages about my 
management port (Gig 0/0), there is nothing going over the console.  I am just 
assuming that the upgrading is indeed happening.  When I did the first switch, 
it took hours as well, so I will be patient.  But I am not happy.

Fortunately, I have the luxury that these two switches were/are not in 
production at the time of their upgrades.  However, I will not have the luxury 
for the other 3850s.

What is your experience with upgrading to Denali or Everest?   This is beyond 
ridiculous.  

Regards,
Christina
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading from 3.0.6 to Denali-16.3.5b

2018-01-17 Thread Nick Cutting 
What did you upgrade from? It is the microcode (asic programming) that takes 
the longest time.
I have never waited longer than 45 minutes - but that is on 3.x -> 3.x

Denali is where they added MPLS, which is a major overhaul in this "slow part 
of the upgrade" - the ASIC programming

-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of 
Christina Klam
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:59 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Upgrading from 3.0.6 to Denali-16.3.5b

This message originates from outside of your organisation.

All,

This is the second Cat3850 that I have tried to upgrade to Denali-16.3.5b.  
Both take hours to go from expanding the files to finishing.  I am on hour two 
for the second switch.  Except for interface status messages about my 
management port (Gig 0/0), there is nothing going over the console.  I am just 
assuming that the upgrading is indeed happening.  When I did the first switch, 
it took hours as well, so I will be patient.  But I am not happy.

Fortunately, I have the luxury that these two switches were/are not in 
production at the time of their upgrades.  However, I will not have the luxury 
for the other 3850s.

What is your experience with upgrading to Denali or Everest?   This is beyond 
ridiculous.  

Regards,
Christina
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Core layer device n7004 vs n9396px

2018-01-17 Thread Garrett Skjelstad 
+1 to your comment about not using ACI-designed switches with NX-OS. I too,
was burned by this during a migratory period.

On Jan 16, 2018 15:59, "Igor Sukhomlinov"  wrote:

+1 to question about routing.
Terminating uplinks from an ISP on a switch is generally not the best
approach. Not that it will not do the job - just you wil loose a fair bit
of flexibility for your internet uplink/s.
The best option imo is to go with ASR9k/NCS5k/NCS5500 series. If you're
actually planning to add flexibility for you Internet connection, e.g add
extra uplinks, either of these platforms will do the job easily.

I had experience 2 years ago with Nexus9300 terminating some BGP and would
not recommend it. Too many limitations and inconsistencies. This is a leaf
switch tailored for ACI deplyments.

Rgds,
Igor

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Gustav Ulander <
gustav.ulan...@telecomputing.se> wrote:

> How much routing are you going to do?
> Nexus platform is still a switch so it really depends on what features you
> need and not just the number of 10Gbit ports.
> NCS 5k platform could also be a contender perhaps?
>
> //Gustav
>
> -Ursprungligt meddelande-
> Från: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] För Satish
> Patel
> Skickat: den 16 januari 2018 14:44
> Till: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Ämne: [c-nsp] Core layer device n7004 vs n9396px
>
>
> We are planing to get 40gbps (4x10G) bonded link from ISP and I’m looking
> for any good device to terminate.
>
> Should I use n7004 or n9396px for core?
>
> We have very basic network no MPLS, no cloud etc. all I need good
> performance and reliable hardware.
>
> Let’s say after couple year I get new 40gbps link on same hardware in that
> case how I will set default gw for two ISP uplink? Should I use VDC or VRF
> for that senario?
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/
> mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> ___
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

[c-nsp] Upgrading from 3.0.6 to Denali-16.3.5b

2018-01-17 Thread Christina Klam 
All,

This is the second Cat3850 that I have tried to upgrade to Denali-16.3.5b.  
Both take hours to go from expanding the files to finishing.  I am on hour two 
for the second switch.  Except for interface status messages about my 
management port (Gig 0/0), there is nothing going over the console.  I am just 
assuming that the upgrading is indeed happening.  When I did the first switch, 
it took hours as well, so I will be patient.  But I am not happy.

Fortunately, I have the luxury that these two switches were/are not in 
production at the time of their upgrades.  However, I will not have the luxury 
for the other 3850s.

What is your experience with upgrading to Denali or Everest?   This is beyond 
ridiculous.  

Regards,
Christina
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/