Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 is a ticking timebomb (CSCvk35460)
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 prefix limit? That Broadcom chipset put me off of the NCS540. That said, I'd imagine that Cisco's BGP-SD code is available for this platform, which would alleviate this concern. The ASR920 only supports 20,000 entries in FIB, and we run a full table on it using BGP-SD. The MX204 is an MPC7 line card in a rack, so it will do the full whack in FIB, which is nice. If they can maintain that capability for an "MX204-lite", we have a proper winner. My fear is that if Juniper were to have a smaller cousin of the MX204 for dense, 1Gbps access, they may go Broadcom, in which case they will position an ACX5000 of sorts, which doesn't move the needle anywhere. 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/
[c-nsp] Quick Script to check the uptime of ASR920's
All, I just created a quick script to check the uptime of a ASR920 via SNMP if you have a fairly long list of devices. It's a simple bash script and snmpwalk version 2c. Figured I would share it with you. Happy Friday Grab the code from GitHub: https://github.com/esundberg/CiscoRouterUptime It's a quick and dirty script and my first repo on github. Let me know if there any issues with it. Output Format in CSV DeviceName, IP, Uptime in Days, OK/Warning I set my warning to 800 Days, you can change this in the code ASR920list.txt - ASR920-1.SEA1, 192.168.28.1, SuperSecretSNMPKey ASR920-2.SEA1, 192.168.28.2, SuperSecretSNMPKey snip you get the idea Output [user@Linux]$ ./CiscoRouterUptime.sh ASR920list.txt ASR920-1.SEA1, 192.168.28.1, 827, WARNING ASR920-2.SEA1, 192.168.28.2, 827, WARNING ASR920-2.ATL1, 192.168.23.2, 828, WARNING ASR920-1.ATL1, 192.168.23.1, 813, WARNING ASR920-1.CHI1, 192.168.21.3, 828, WARNING ASR920-1.NYC1, 192.168.25.1, 787, OK ASR920-2.CHI1, 192.168.21.4, 720, OK ASR920-3.CHI1, 192.168.21.5, 720, OK ASR920-1.DAL1, 192.168.26.3, 488, OK ASR920-4.CHI1, 192.168.21.6, 142, OK 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/
[c-nsp] VB: ASR920 is a ticking timebomb (CSCvk35460)
-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: cisco-nsp För Mark Tinka Skickat: den 25 januari 2019 11:11 Till: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Ämne: Re: [c-nsp] ASR920 is a ticking timebomb (CSCvk35460) 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 it's not unreasonable to expect a network to not reboot a router every so often to "clear things up", and that high uptime should be expected. > > I hear that Juniper is coming out with a different configuration of > MX204 with lot of 1GE/10GE SFP+ based ports? This sounds very exciting to me.. anyone got any details/timeline/etc? > The power requirement of MX204 is very good and the box is really easy > to install at small sites. I've been talking to Juniper about this very thing - to launch an MX204-lite, if you will, which focuses on 24 - 48 1Gbps/10Gbps ports, and 40Gbps/100Gbps uplink ports. If they can manage this, then Cisco have a worthy competitor in this space. Here's to hoping they listen; I mean, I only started talking them about this back in 2007, what could go wrong :-)... Mark. This is actually kind of interesting, seeing how many reasonably priced boxes there is int this space for DC switching one would imagine that it wouldnt be all that hard. Looking at the chipset that said boxes use many of them has support for MPLS. I'm a little bit interested in the NCS-540 for this segment although the prefix side is a bit thin. I havent played with it yet though. Anyone else run the NCS540 in the Edge role and are there any major limitations except the 128K ipv4 prefix limit? //Gustav ___ 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] ASR920 is a ticking timebomb (CSCvk35460)
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 it's not unreasonable to expect a network to not reboot a router every so often to "clear things up", and that high uptime should be expected. > > I hear that Juniper is coming out with a different configuration of MX204 > with lot of > 1GE/10GE SFP+ based ports? This sounds very exciting to me.. anyone got any > details/timeline/etc? > The power requirement of MX204 is very good and the box is really easy to > install at > small sites. I've been talking to Juniper about this very thing - to launch an MX204-lite, if you will, which focuses on 24 - 48 1Gbps/10Gbps ports, and 40Gbps/100Gbps uplink ports. If they can manage this, then Cisco have a worthy competitor in this space. Here's to hoping they listen; I mean, I only started talking them about this back in 2007, what could go wrong :-)... 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/
