Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
Nah... The next model will be console via bluetooth. > On Jan 16, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:11:59PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> Gert Doering wrote: >>> - for those with classic serial ports, or modem needs, there is a standard >>> serial console with *standard* layout (read: Cisco RJ45) >> >> i'm half expecting the ASR930 (if/when it ever happens) to come with the >> following: >> >> http://i.imgur.com/iCdq3Qt.jpg > > Nah... since that BU is all fancy on USB-A for everything... my bet is > on USB-A not RJ45. And they will call it "USB C power supply". > > gert > -- > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! > //www.muc.de/~gert/ > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de > fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de > ___ > 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/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
> On 17/01/2016, at 00:03, Erik Sundberg wrote: > > cisco ASR-920-24SZ-M > > Rack mount Brackets -- more like the cisco 2901 rack mount brackets > http://imgur.com/MpXp8li Ahh right, the ASR-920-4SZ-A model (which I have) isn’t as wide, so the brackets take up the extra space. Because they’ve got an extra couple cm to cover, they need the extra thickness so the bracket works in wall mount mode. No replaceable PSUs on these either. You either get naff brackets or PSUs that stick out the front, I guess. -- Nathan Ward ___ 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] Cisco ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations
On 16/Jan/16 19:24, Adrian Minta wrote: > Doesn't the command "hold-queue 24 out" on physical interface do > the same thing ? That's for exception traffic. 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/
Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations
Adrian Minta wrote: > Doesn't the command "hold-queue 24 out" on physical interface do the > same thing ? No. The hold-queue command only affects traffic going to the router cpu. In the case of a hardware assisted router like an asr920, this will only affect traffic like BGP, OSPF, ISIS, etc, not traffic which is being forwarded. Nick ___ 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] Cisco ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations
Doesn't the command "hold-queue 24 out" on physical interface do the same thing ? On 01/16/2016 06:15 PM, James Jun wrote: +1 also, we have several ASR920-24SZ-IM's and 24SZ-M's out in the field and we're very happy with them. Aside from LAG limitations (workaround solution was to not use them :-S), the only other issue I've run into is that default port buffer/queue sizes (48KB?) are rather small. This is a slight annoyance since typical deployment of 920 has at least 2x 10GE feeding the 1GE revenue ports on the box. As I understand, 920 only has 12MB shared buffer space so that probably explains it, but on default queue sizes, almost every 1GE end-user port (no traffic-shaping on user ports, just full-rate 1G port with 10G uplink) excessively collects output drops on practically most trivial IMIX usage. For example, a FreeBSD box sitting with 1GE behind ASR920 just doing wget from a download mirror 50ms away records output drops on 920; whereas a 1GE port off of ASR9K or MX80 would not collect output drops for this type of usage. Sure, it is reasonable to expect an end-user running Speedtest.net or watching Netflix spamming multiple flows to cause output drops, but not on single flow of download. As a workaround, raising the queue-limit to 512 KB per 1G port dramatically gets rid of output drops for trivial traffic. You should still see drops for longhaul bursty traffic overwhelming a 1GE interface when stepping down from 10G uplink, but that's pretty much a reasonable congestion at that point, so dropping packet is better. 512KB seems to be reasonable; 24x1GE * 512KB = 12.2MB, so we don't oversubscribe the global buffer space, and it's roughly ~4ms of output buffer per port. ! class-map match-any cos_all match cos 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 policy-map MC_1G_512kb class cos_all bandwidth percent 100 queue-limit 512000 bytes ! James -- Best regards, Adrian Minta ___ 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] Cisco ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 03:54:01PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: > > On 16/Jan/16 13:57, Eric Van Tol wrote: > > > > > We've been pretty happy with the ASR, especially the models with 4x10G > > on-board. The cost is significantly less than an ME3600, even with a full > > suite of licenses (Advanced IP Metro, all 10G ports, all GE ports), and the > > footprint is much smaller (well, more shallow). > > +1. > > We've started rolling them out since last December, and so far so good. > +1 also, we have several ASR920-24SZ-IM's and 24SZ-M's out in the field and we're very happy with them. Aside from LAG limitations (workaround solution was to not use them :-S), the only other issue I've run into is that default port buffer/queue sizes (48KB?) are rather small. This is a slight annoyance since typical deployment of 920 has at least 2x 10GE feeding the 1GE revenue ports on the box. As I understand, 920 only has 12MB shared buffer space so that probably explains it, but on default queue sizes, almost every 1GE end-user port (no traffic-shaping on user ports, just full-rate 1G port with 10G uplink) excessively collects output drops on practically most trivial IMIX usage. For example, a FreeBSD box sitting with 1GE behind ASR920 just doing wget from a download mirror 50ms away records output drops on 920; whereas a 1GE port off of ASR9K or MX80 would not collect output drops for this type of usage. Sure, it is reasonable to expect an end-user running Speedtest.net or watching Netflix spamming multiple flows to cause output drops, but not on single flow of download. As a workaround, raising the queue-limit to 512 KB per 1G port dramatically gets rid of output drops for trivial traffic. You should still see drops for longhaul bursty traffic overwhelming a 1GE interface when stepping down from 10G uplink, but that's pretty much a reasonable congestion at that point, so dropping packet is better. 512KB seems to be reasonable; 24x1GE * 512KB = 12.2MB, so we don't oversubscribe the global buffer space, and it's roughly ~4ms of output buffer per port. ! class-map match-any cos_all match cos 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 policy-map MC_1G_512kb class cos_all bandwidth percent 100 queue-limit 512000 bytes ! James ___ 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] Cisco ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations
On 16/Jan/16 13:57, Eric Van Tol wrote: > > We've been pretty happy with the ASR, especially the models with 4x10G > on-board. The cost is significantly less than an ME3600, even with a full > suite of licenses (Advanced IP Metro, all 10G ports, all GE ports), and the > footprint is much smaller (well, more shallow). +1. We've started rolling them out since last December, and so far so good. The only issue with the box is poor LAG QoS support (which we're talking to Cisco about). But this affects all Cisco routers. 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/
Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
Hi, On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:11:59PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Gert Doering wrote: > > - for those with classic serial ports, or modem needs, there is a standard > >serial console with *standard* layout (read: Cisco RJ45) > > i'm half expecting the ASR930 (if/when it ever happens) to come with the > following: > > http://i.imgur.com/iCdq3Qt.jpg Nah... since that BU is all fancy on USB-A for everything... my bet is on USB-A not RJ45. And they will call it "USB C power supply". gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
Gert Doering wrote: > - for those with classic serial ports, or modem needs, there is a standard >serial console with *standard* layout (read: Cisco RJ45) i'm half expecting the ASR930 (if/when it ever happens) to come with the following: http://i.imgur.com/iCdq3Qt.jpg Nick ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
--- Begin Message --- On 16/01/2016 10:43 PM, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 09:07:00AM +, CiscoNSP List wrote: Cheers for the replies guys - I'm really interested in the rational behind moving to USB from traditional RJ45 portsrealestate?boggles the mind. Well, if done properly, it's actually easier to the admins than having to carry around a usb-to-serial adapter all the time (since almost all current machines do not have a built-in serial port anymore). "properly" implies something else, though, like: - the "real" USB console has a mini-b or micro-B plug, so a bog-standard USB cable otherwise used to charge your mobile will do the job (as for driver installation, well, if you can find a USB-to-serial chip that windows supports by default, even better - but otherwise, unavoidable misery. On Linux, it just works with the common chipsets) USB console is a good idea but the execution of this changeover was botched. As of today we have most routers and switches rolling out with USB serial ports and what appears to be USB->Serial chips onboard to do the translation. This required only a standard mini-b to USB cable to work. Big tick there. The hardware teams did a good job on their part of the job and the implementation of hardware is usually good. But where Cisco seriously lost all credibility with this was the software/driver support. As of today: Windows 7 driver - available on CCO and works OK Windows 8 driver - never supported Windows 8.1 driver - never supported Windows 10 driver - seems to be built into Windows 10 Note that the Windows 7 driver did not work on Windows 8. And in practice on every laptop I tried it on the driver got in a messed up loop whereby it created 255 COM ports in Windows before deciding that there were none left. This left a right royal mess in device manager to clean up. At least a part of this bug was being tracked under CSCuh52585 which has never been made customer visible. There was some comment on this in: https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/11996231/usb-console-drivers-windows-8 In the end I just went and bought a decent dongle that did have good driver support and haven't had to deal with the problem since. There are still some routers which don't have USB console ports such as the C819G's though. So it's not quite yet ubiquitous. But that's the exception not the norm. Reuben --- End Message --- ___ 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] Cisco ASR920-24SZ-IM BVI Feature Limitations
> So I'm looking to know whether or not I can expect to lose ACL, netflow, QoS > on a 920 BVI the same as I would as a BVI on the Trident based LC's... Not to be pedantic, but it's actually a BDI on the ASR920 - likely not germane to the discussion at hand, but important if you're wondering why the configuration is different. > So I'm looking to know whether or not I can expect to lose ACL, > netflow, QoS on a 920 BVI the same as I would as a BVI on the Trident > based LC's... L3 ACLs work on BDIs, as does uRPF. There is no support for Netflow on ASR920, AFAIK, but I believe it is on the roadmap (Waris or someone on the Carrier Ethernet unit can probably confirm). You cannot apply service policies to a BDI - they need to be applied to the EFP on the port. It appears that MPLS TE over BDI has also recently been supported on 3.17. We've been pretty happy with the ASR, especially the models with 4x10G on-board. The cost is significantly less than an ME3600, even with a full suite of licenses (Advanced IP Metro, all 10G ports, all GE ports), and the footprint is much smaller (well, more shallow). -evt ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
Hi, On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 09:07:00AM +, CiscoNSP List wrote: > Cheers for the replies guys - I'm really interested in the rational behind > moving to USB from traditional RJ45 portsrealestate?boggles the mind. Well, if done properly, it's actually easier to the admins than having to carry around a usb-to-serial adapter all the time (since almost all current machines do not have a built-in serial port anymore). "properly" implies something else, though, like: - the "real" USB console has a mini-b or micro-B plug, so a bog-standard USB cable otherwise used to charge your mobile will do the job (as for driver installation, well, if you can find a USB-to-serial chip that windows supports by default, even better - but otherwise, unavoidable misery. On Linux, it just works with the common chipsets) - for those with classic serial ports, or modem needs, there is a standard serial console with *standard* layout (read: Cisco RJ45) gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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] 1000BASE-ZX/LH multi-manufacturer interconnection
Livio Zanol Puppim wrote: > *So my question is: Can I connect 2 equipments of different manufactures > using their own manufactured transceiver? Will there be a problem in this > connection?* it's nearly certain to work fine - almost all transceivers use wide-band receivers. But why on earth are you buying vendor transceivers? Reputable third party transceivers work just as well and there are several vendors with transceiver programmers. Vendor transceivers are mostly a waste of money. Nick ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
Here is the port numbering any port layout that I was talking about. Backwards from a ME Switch, but I guess this is a router... Starts lower left with 0 http://imgur.com/qPLXsrI -Original Message- From: Nathan Ward [mailto:cisco-...@daork.net] Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 4:54 AM To: Erik Sundberg Cc: CiscoNSP List ; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 "console" portugh > On 16/01/2016, at 23:51, Erik Sundberg wrote: > > My rack mount brackets don't look like that... Interesting! Post a pic? -- Nathan Ward CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
cisco ASR-920-24SZ-M Rack mount Brackets -- more like the cisco 2901 rack mount brackets http://imgur.com/MpXp8li This cisco page also show the brackets that I have http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr920/hardware/installation/guide/ASR920_HIG/hw_installation.html Power Supplies http://imgur.com/PIvv8xh Other wish list for the ASR920 - 36x or 48x 1G port model - 24x 10G Port model - I really don't like the licensing model, your almost always stuck buying the bulk license. -Original Message- From: Nathan Ward [mailto:cisco-...@daork.net] Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 4:54 AM To: Erik Sundberg Cc: CiscoNSP List ; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 "console" portugh > On 16/01/2016, at 23:51, Erik Sundberg wrote: > > My rack mount brackets don't look like that... Interesting! Post a pic? -- Nathan Ward CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
> On 16/01/2016, at 23:51, Erik Sundberg wrote: > > My rack mount brackets don't look like that... Interesting! Post a pic? -- Nathan Ward ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
Just finished installing a ASR920 tonight... I had the same issue, just order 6 of those console kits This is really annoying... My rack mount brackets don't look like that... Some changes from Cisco Norm for the ASR920 - No RJ45 console port, very disappointing - The power plug for AC is a C15 not a normal C13 - Services Instances are 1-4000 not 4096. We usually keep the service instance id and the stag the same. You couldn't add another 96 service instances. - Interface layout on the switch would have been nice if it was like cisco switch top left is the first port, but on the asr920 it's the bottom right is port G0/0/0. - interface number start with 0 like a router, instead of 1 like the ME3800's - Management Interface vrf name is forced to Mgmt-intf, you can't change it. - It's weird that the power supplies stick out a 1/4" inch -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of CiscoNSP List Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 3:33 AM To: Nathan Ward Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 "console" portugh Cheers Nathan...sane logic appears to have alluded the team responsible for some of these choices From: Nathan Ward Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 8:11 PM To: CiscoNSP List Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 "console" portugh > On 16/01/2016, at 22:03, CiscoNSP List wrote: > > Thanks Nathan - I really question Cisco's thought processwhat was "wrong" > with the traditional style RJ45 console port? Took up too much realestate?? > > We have rack kits for them, but Ive only just unpacked 2, found the fun > console ports, got that working, and upgraded XE on them bothhavent > installed rack kits yet, but thanks for the heads upcan they still be > racked on top of each other, or does the rack kit cause issues? Caused issues for me, yeah. Here's a pic: http://imgur.com/W8Z2Imi Those folded bits are so it can sit flat when in wall mount mode, but they make it taller than 1RU. Pretty stupid. -- Nathan Ward ___ 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/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
Cheers Nathan...sane logic appears to have alluded the team responsible for some of these choices From: Nathan Ward Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 8:11 PM To: CiscoNSP List Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 "console" portugh > On 16/01/2016, at 22:03, CiscoNSP List wrote: > > Thanks Nathan - I really question Cisco's thought processwhat was "wrong" > with the traditional style RJ45 console port? Took up too much realestate?? > > We have rack kits for them, but Ive only just unpacked 2, found the fun > console ports, got that working, and upgraded XE on them bothhavent > installed rack kits yet, but thanks for the heads upcan they still be > racked on top of each other, or does the rack kit cause issues? Caused issues for me, yeah. Here’s a pic: http://imgur.com/W8Z2Imi Those folded bits are so it can sit flat when in wall mount mode, but they make it taller than 1RU. Pretty stupid. -- Nathan Ward ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
> On 16/01/2016, at 22:03, CiscoNSP List wrote: > > Thanks Nathan - I really question Cisco's thought processwhat was "wrong" > with the traditional style RJ45 console port? Took up too much realestate?? > > We have rack kits for them, but Ive only just unpacked 2, found the fun > console ports, got that working, and upgraded XE on them bothhavent > installed rack kits yet, but thanks for the heads upcan they still be > racked on top of each other, or does the rack kit cause issues? Caused issues for me, yeah. Here’s a pic: http://imgur.com/W8Z2Imi Those folded bits are so it can sit flat when in wall mount mode, but they make it taller than 1RU. Pretty stupid. -- Nathan Ward ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
> On 16/01/2016, at 22:07, CiscoNSP List wrote: > > > Cheers for the replies guys - I'm really interested in the rational behind > moving to USB from traditional RJ45 portsrealestate?boggles the mind. Yeah I presume so. An RJ45 with two USB A holes underneath is a pretty common part as well. I guess it was partially a price thing - probably similar to why serial ended up on RJ45 in the first place? I haven’t been around long enough to know :-) -- Nathan Ward ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
Cheers for the replies guys - I'm really interested in the rational behind moving to USB from traditional RJ45 portsrealestate?boggles the mind. From: Nathan Ward Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 6:57 PM To: Gert Doering Cc: CiscoNSP List; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 "console" portugh On 16/01/2016, at 20:54, Gert Doering mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de>> wrote: Hi, On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 08:50:49PM +1300, Nathan Ward wrote: Hi, there is both a USB signalled console port, and an RS232 console. The RS232 console uses a USB style connector, which is very, very poor. Is that the "EIA console" port? On an USB A-type connector? Yes. Check out "Figure 1-2 Front Panel of Cisco ASR-920-12CZ-D Router" on this page: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr920/hardware/installation/guide/ASR920_HIG/overview.html "Console port (TIA/EIA-232F)" is RS232 on a USB connector. "Auxiliary Console port" is also RS232 on a USB connector. The only USB signalled ports are down the other end of the router. Cisco sell a cable that gives you an RJ45 RS232, it???s just wires, no active components in there. >From the description I assumed that this would be some sort of standard USB RS232 cable, but what you write scares me deeply... Yeah, it's naff. Really, really, naff. -- Nathan Ward ___ 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] ASR920 "console" port....ugh
Thanks Nathan - I really question Cisco's thought processwhat was "wrong" with the traditional style RJ45 console port? Took up too much realestate?? We have rack kits for them, but Ive only just unpacked 2, found the fun console ports, got that working, and upgraded XE on them bothhavent installed rack kits yet, but thanks for the heads upcan they still be racked on top of each other, or does the rack kit cause issues? Im going to order in a few of these A920-CONS-KIT-S Serial Console Kit, USB-to-RJ45 cable Hopefully they will do what I needIm assuming they will be very inexpensive lol Cheers. From: Nathan Ward Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016 6:50 PM To: CiscoNSP List Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 "console" portugh > On 16/01/2016, at 20:46, CiscoNSP List wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I see the ASR920 doesnt have the "traditional" console port, but uses > USBthen you have to install special driver on your Lappy/whatever that > turns the USB into a "console" port (So you can access it via putty etc.) > > > > While painful(But works), my other issue is with how to solve remote > DC's/OOBi.e. we currently use Opengears and still a couple of old 2500's > with the RJ45 ports for the console connections..question is, has anyone > successfully used a USB->console/RJ45 connector on these devices? (So I would > still be USB cable from ASR920 -> converter(USB->RJ45?), then rollover cable > from adapter to Opengear console ports? > > > > Begs the other question...why have Cisco decided to cease using the > traditional console ports? purely to frustrate users of there equipment? lol Hi, there is both a USB signalled console port, and an RS232 console. The RS232 console uses a USB style connector, which is very, very poor. Cisco sell a cable that gives you an RJ45 RS232, it’s just wires, no active components in there. I’m not sure I’ve got one handy, but when I do, I can reverse engineer the cable for you so you can get the pinout if you like - but I don’t imagine it’d be hard to figure out if you’ve got a multimeter, USB connectors only have 4 pins. Also, have you got ASR920 rack mount ears? Ever notice that they’re taller than 1RU because of the folded bits? It’s a pretty bad product from a physical design POV. -- Nathan Ward ___ 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/
