Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-15 Thread James Bensley
On 15 July 2016 at 09:44, brad dreisbach wrote: > i am beta testing 6.1.1(64b linux) in our lab and was provided a 5.3.3 smu > that enables a new rommon that supports pxe boot over tcp(ive specifically > tested http). If you get a chance, please let us know how that goes. I'm

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-15 Thread brad dreisbach
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:10:53AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: James Bensley wrote: Or if you are erasing and installing from fresh on the new version, then the box is down for pretty much the whole 2 hours. turboboot is not necessarily a bad idea if you're doing jumps from one major version

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-14 Thread Werner le Grange
Hi Nick The SMU count for 5.3.3 has grown quite rapidly in the last 2 months. 5.3.4 will be released in about 2 months from now and will include the SMU fixes of 5.3.3. On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Nick Griffin wrote: > Hello, looking for some details in

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-14 Thread James Bensley
On 14 July 2016 at 11:10, Nick Hilliard wrote: > James Bensley wrote: >> Or if you are erasing and installing from fresh on the new version, >> then the box is down for pretty much the whole 2 hours. > > turboboot is not necessarily a bad idea if you're doing jumps from one >

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-14 Thread Nick Hilliard
James Bensley wrote: > Or if you are erasing and installing from fresh on the new version, > then the box is down for pretty much the whole 2 hours. turboboot is not necessarily a bad idea if you're doing jumps from one major version to the next or even 4.3 to 6.0. The turboboot process will add

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-14 Thread James Bensley
On 14 July 2016 at 10:26, James Bensley wrote: > assuming there are no problems, 2 hours actual time Sorry that wasn't clear. That isn't specifically all down time. If you are upgrading IOS-XR over-the-top of the existing version, downtime might be 45 minutes to 1 hour (you

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-14 Thread James Bensley
I'd go 5.3.3 with SP2 if you want stability, or wait for 6.1 to drop if you want to be on the forefront (and lab test heavily of course). I'd also schedule like 5 hours for the maintenance window, not 2 or 3. If you get 90% of the way through an have to roll back, you'll need more time. We are

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-13 Thread Tom Hill
On 13/07/16 15:13, Jared Mauch wrote: > There were improvements that went in 533+ which should improve your > experience. I haven't checked if 602 hit CCO but you may want to look > at that, or wait for 534. Neither 6.0.2 or 5.3.4 has hit GA yet. 6.0.1 is (oddly) marked as MD rather than ED, too.

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-13 Thread Tom Hill
On 13/07/16 22:52, Mark Tinka wrote: > > On 13/Jul/16 23:46, Curtis Piehler wrote: > >> > So going from 5.1.X to 6.X.X will likely involve fpd upgrades? > I've, pretty much, found an FPD update in every major release. That has been my expectation - usually at least one component has a new FW

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-13 Thread Mark Tinka
On 13/Jul/16 23:46, Curtis Piehler wrote: > So going from 5.1.X to 6.X.X will likely involve fpd upgrades? I've, pretty much, found an FPD update in every major release. Mark. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-13 Thread Curtis Piehler
So going from 5.1.X to 6.X.X will likely involve fpd upgrades? I've been hit by the SNMP OID bug that consumes memory over time but I can hold out by restarting the SNMP process every once in a while. On Jul 13, 2016 4:39 PM, "Gert Doering" wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jul 13,

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-13 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:30:11PM +0200, Juergen Marenda wrote: > Because of > https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco- > sa-20160525-ipv6 > asr9k: https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuz66542 > > it should be 5.3.4.1 or for the brave

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-13 Thread Juergen Marenda
Because of https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco- sa-20160525-ipv6 asr9k: https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuz66542 it should be 5.3.4.1 or for the brave 6.1.1.16 but I cannt see it for download (but 5.3.3 two times ! ) ... waiting for a fix

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-13 Thread Mark Tinka
On 13/Jul/16 16:13, Jared Mauch wrote: > We see around 1 hour of traffic loss due to upgrade times before adding in > FPD and others, which can extend to more like 3 hours. Yep, I'd say budget a 3hr window per router for the upgrade. Mark. ___

Re: [c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-13 Thread Jared Mauch
We see around 1 hour of traffic loss due to upgrade times before adding in FPD and others, which can extend to more like 3 hours. There were improvements that went in 533+ which should improve your experience. I haven't checked if 602 hit CCO but you may want to look at that, or wait for 534.

[c-nsp] ASR 9000 Upgrade Expectations

2016-07-13 Thread Nick Griffin
Hello, looking for some details in regards to an ASR9000 code upgrade. Currently running software version 5.1.1 with the following packages: Committed Packages: disk0:asr9k-mini-px-5.1.1 disk0:asr9k-k9sec-px-5.1.1 disk0:asr9k-mpls-px-5.1.1 disk0:asr9k-mgbl-px-5.1.1 disk0:asr9k-optic-px-5.1.1