Cheers Guys - Have 03.16.02aS on the ones ready for deployment, so fingers crossed, it remains a stable release :)
Thanks for the feedback. ________________________________________ From: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2016 3:35 PM To: James Jun; CiscoNSP List Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 - Any "outstanding" TAC cases people are working through? On 26/May/16 06:23, James Jun wrote: > I believe there is an mpls label-range bug that Mark noted (CSCuy29638) which > is outstanding, but that can be worked around by staying out of high label > range. Actually, Cisco normally allocate low-range labels. So this is fine if the box adjacent to the ASR920 is a Cisco. Juniper tend to allocate labels in the 300,000 - 400,000+ range. This is not an issue if the ASR920 is not adjacent to the Juniper. In our case, all situations where we hit this bug is when the ASR920 is adjacent to a Juniper. We are not in a position to change the topology to avoid the adjacency between the ASR920 and a Juniper. Unfortunately, it is not possible to set a label allocation range in Junos today, the same way you can on a Cisco. That capability is only slated for Junos 16. For us, the workaround is a test image that includes the fix that the BU built specially for us. But not to worry, the BU say the fixed image is still on schedule for release 7th June, this year :-). > > > Thankfully, this bug is also fixed on 03.16.02aS. 920s upgraded to this > release appear to be fine so far. Save for my MPLS label range issue, this release is very stable. Mark. _______________________________________________ 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/
