Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 14/03/16 10:07, James Bensley wrote: > On 9 March 2016 at 20:27, Tom Hill wrote: >> Presumably to "prove" this (or rather, to add any evidence at all) it's >> wipe & reinstall time for the affected 9001? >> > Sure I understand. I've just done an erase and reinstall on the

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 9 March 2016 at 20:27, Tom Hill wrote: > Presumably to "prove" this (or rather, to add any evidence at all) it's > wipe & reinstall time for the affected 9001? > > I'm not trying to get your back up here - I'm more concerned about FUD > vs. actual, operational experience.

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> On Mar 9, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Tom Hill wrote: > > On 08/03/16 09:27, James Bensley wrote: >> This issue didn't show up in lab testing and we haven't been able to >> replicate it (nor have TAC). It seems to be something about the >> ordering of patching and that was the

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 08/03/16 09:27, James Bensley wrote: > This issue didn't show up in lab testing and we haven't been able to > replicate it (nor have TAC). It seems to be something about the > ordering of patching and that was the point I wanted to highlight but > poorly eluded to. > > A fresh 4.3.4 install

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 8 March 2016 at 11:02, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Well this sounds like a perfect example of a regression bug, when fix of one > thing introduces another bug, > That's why I like to cherry pick SMUs related only to what I truly need to > fix. > If the SP has a fix

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

Hi, On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 09:27:43AM +, James Bensley wrote: > Well bit a rant from me there, sorry ;) > > This issue didn't show up in lab testing and we haven't been able to > replicate it (nor have TAC). It seems to be something about the > ordering of patching and that was the point I

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 8 March 2016 at 09:02, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Well this sounds like a perfect example of a regression bug, when fix of one > thing introduces another bug, Indeed a perfect example. For the record the umbrella SMU referenced is CSCun32418, the fix for CSCum71513

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 8 March 2016 at 07:49, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not exactly sure how that relates to patch ordering and SMUs, tbh - > this is just a bug (and an annoying one, and testing should have caught > it before it was ever shipped) - but "slapping on 4.3.4SP10, instead >

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> James Bensley > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 10:05 PM > > On 5 March 2016 at 22:25, Saku Ytti wrote: > > If you can rewrite the function run-time, then you can force linear > > progression so if you want given fix on function Z, you also must walk > > all the earlier changes in

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

Hi, On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 10:05:03PM +, James Bensley wrote: > I have just today bottomed out another IOS-XR bug with the help of TAC > and a BGP developer from China. An ASR9001 running BGP PIC and was > originally 4.3.4 default which eventually received some custom SMUs to > fix a bug

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 5 March 2016 at 22:25, Saku Ytti wrote: > If you can rewrite the function run-time, > then you can force linear progression so if you want given fix on > function Z, you also must walk all the earlier changes in order until > you're at that fix. Naturally. Going back to my

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 3 February 2016 at 15:29, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > I have spent a non-trivial amount of time going through SMUs and testing > upgrades. Considering that Cisco do not do testing of SMUs in any-to-any > configuration, I am a big proponent of SPs, where the SP is properly

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 5/Mar/16 23:06, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Just would like to understand what you folks mean, We mean fabrics, backplanes and/or midplanes based on optical connections, and not copper connections. So if look at the connectors on your line cards or fabric modules, in lieu of copper connectors,

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

Hi folks, > Mikael Abrahamsson > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 4:52 PM > To: Mark Tinka > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > But aren't the fabric chassis' in multi-chassis d

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 4/Mar/16 19:15, Jared Mauch wrote: > We have customers connected to these devices. In a word, how do they compare to Cisco/Juniper/Brocade/ALU? Mark. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 08:58:23AM -0800, Yury Shefer wrote: > But who is really using Compass products? > > The last press release has been published back in August 2015. Blog/in news > section has been untouched since 2014. Are they still alive? We have customers connected to these

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

But who is really using Compass products? The last press release has been published back in August 2015. Blog/in news section has been untouched since 2014. Are they still alive? http://www.compassnetworks.com/ On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Mark Tinka wrote: But aren't the fabric chassis' in multi-chassis deployments for the CRS all optics-based? Yes, but I believe the discussion was around optical backplanes within a device, not between devices. Compass EOS is the only player I am aware of that does

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 2/Mar/16 17:30, Phil Bedard wrote: > The issues vendors have expressed when I asked was fiber quality, keeping > connectors clean, and then just the HW to interface components at really high > speeds. It’s not that they couldn’t make it work, but it just wasn’t worth it > over what they

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

, 2016 at 01:10 To: Phil B <phil...@gmail.com>, Adam Vitkovsky <adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk>, Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de>, Phil Mayers <p.may...@imperial.ac.uk> Cc: "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 -

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 1/Mar/16 19:08, Phil Bedard wrote: > > > Optical will come at some point, but not in the near future, there are issues > with optical backplanes that aren’t easy to solve. Does anyone know how Compass Networks have solved (or are solving) this problem? Mark.

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

>, Phil Mayers <p.may...@imperial.ac.uk> Cc: "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue > > >On 1/Mar/16 16:45, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > >> Yeah right could be that, >> Wondering if switc

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 2:54 PM > > > > On 1/Mar/16 16:45, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > > Yeah right could be that, > > Wondering if switching vendors would help last time I looked PTX had max > 8x100GE LCs and only found 10x100GE on one NCS LC. > >

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 1/Mar/16 16:45, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Yeah right could be that, > Wondering if switching vendors would help last time I looked PTX had max > 8x100GE LCs and only found 10x100GE on one NCS LC. > So I guess 1Tbps per LC is still a luxury in an MPLS router. And this is why I was curious why

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 2:05 PM > > On 1/Mar/16 15:47, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > > Interesting because CRS-X LCs are using nPower X1e as well. > > Probably some other limiting factors > > Or just commercial - the ASR9000 is "the" edge

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 1/Mar/16 15:47, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Interesting because CRS-X LCs are using nPower X1e as well. > Probably some other limiting factors Or just commercial - the ASR9000 is "the" edge router at Cisco for the moment. The NCS is the next step after CRS. I'm guessing Cisco want to sell more

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:19 PM > > > > On 1/Mar/16 15:11, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > > Hi Gert, > > > > I think the approach that vendors are heading towards is to have multiple > VMs. > > So VM hosting one XR version and another VM hosting

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 1/Mar/16 15:11, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Hi Gert, > > I think the approach that vendors are heading towards is to have multiple VMs. > So VM hosting one XR version and another VM hosting another XR version and > then you just switch from one to other > And since the nPower X1e allows for two

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> Gert Doering > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 12:16 PM > > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:21:11AM +, Phil Mayers wrote: > > Upgrades != Fresh installs, unless the OS is a complete, > > self-contained, read-only image, with the only mutable state being > > config applied to the ramdisk

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

Hi, On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:21:11AM +, Phil Mayers wrote: > Upgrades != Fresh installs, unless the OS is a complete, self-contained, > read-only image, with the only mutable state being config applied to the > ramdisk *after* boot ;o) True, and that's actually an option I'd love to see

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 01/03/16 08:22, Gert Doering wrote: It's an expression of distrust to the software upgrade process... Numerous vendors who build their network OSes on top of third-party general-purpose OSes (e.g. Linux) have problems which justify this distrust. It's not uncommon for the

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 1 March 2016 at 09:10, James Bensley wrote: > but why the fourth? "but why NOT the fourth?" James. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:35:23AM +, Tom Hill wrote: >> How does that affect 'network state'? A box running version Y that was upgraded from version X is not in the same state as a box that was erased and installed strait onto version X (unless the vendor is going to jump through hops and

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue Hi, On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:35:23AM +, Tom Hill wrote: > How does that affect 'network state'? Either it works after upgrade, > or it does not? Well, I could see the fear that "not everything is really on the same level" (like, some feat

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

Hi, On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:35:23AM +, Tom Hill wrote: > How does that affect 'network state'? Either it works after upgrade, or > it does not? Well, I could see the fear that "not everything is really on the same level" (like, some features are missing bugfixes, etc.) and much later, you

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 27/02/16 15:58, James Bensley wrote: > I don't want to have some PEs that were 4.3.4 and where upgraded to > 5.3.3, others that were 5.1.3 that where upgraded to 5.3.3. I also > don't want 4.3.4 SP10 boxes being upgraded to 5.1.3 then patched to > SP8 etc, then upgraded to 5.3.3 etc. That's all

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, James Bensley wrote: Erase the box, push up the new image and original config. That way the network state is known at all times without having to ask the PEs. Everything is nice and consistent. This is a workaround because the vendor did a shoddy job with package and

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 26 February 2016 at 16:07, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 3/Feb/16 17:04, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > >> >> >> I've been told XR 6.x will have a new package handler, I am curious to >> see if that actually fixes a lot of the problems. I kept stating to >> people involved with

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 27 February 2016 at 12:05, Jared Mauch wrote: > > I would not load 5.3.3 until at least SP1 hits the street, there are a lot of > defects Cisco is working through. The majority if not all 5.1.3 SP8 patches are in 5.3.3 default. Also we've been lab testing it (only on

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 26 February 2016 at 23:13, Tom Hill wrote: > On 26/02/16 22:54, James Bensley wrote: >> We are not upgrading between versions only appying SMUs and service >> packs to the current version. In the case of moving from 4.3.4 to >> 5.1.3 and now moving to 5.3.3 (since that is

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 5:54 PM, James Bensley wrote: > > On 26 February 2016 at 22:43, Phil Bedard wrote: >> How you upgrade the whole OS is still a bit hazy though. They have said it >> involves using a self-extracting ISO distribution similar to other

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

Does anyone have any war stories to share about an upgrade process on NCS6K please, where supposedly all these problems shouldn't matter anymore? adam Adam Vitkovsky IP Engineer T: 0333 006 5936 E: adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk W: www.gamma.co.uk This is

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 26/02/16 22:54, James Bensley wrote: > We are not upgrading between versions only appying SMUs and service > packs to the current version. In the case of moving from 4.3.4 to > 5.1.3 and now moving to 5.3.3 (since that is the new extended > maintenance release); the process is erase the box,

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 26/02/16 22:43, Phil Bedard wrote: > Well XR 6.0 is the first linux-based version. The new “install” > command for packages is actually a wrapper for yum, so it includes > things like dependency verification. > > How you upgrade the whole OS is still a bit hazy though. They have > said it

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 26 February 2016 at 22:43, Phil Bedard wrote: > How you upgrade the whole OS is still a bit hazy though. They have said it > involves using a self-extracting ISO distribution similar to other Linux > distros. They are supporting PXE so theoretically you could automate

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

016 at 11:07 To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se>, Lukas Tribus <luky...@hotmail.com> Cc: "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue > > >On 3/Feb/16 17:04, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > >> >

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 3/Feb/16 17:04, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > > I've been told XR 6.x will have a new package handler, I am curious to > see if that actually fixes a lot of the problems. I kept stating to > people involved with XR that the Debian apt tool was better in 2000 > than the package handling in

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 2/Feb/16 14:47, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > I am not aware of any product the past 10-15 years that didn't have > serious bugs at first customer shipment. If you want something that > works, wait 1-2 years after first customer shipment and try it, then > it usually works. Now, at that

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

Hi James, > James Bensley > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 3:33 PM > > On 2 February 2016 at 15:09, Adam Vitkovsky > wrote: > > Are you running 5+ by any chance? > > > >> It’s been years since IOS-XR was released on ASR9000's, no excuse now > >> for basic features

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> So... again, big proponent of properly tested SRs instead of SMU-hell. But then again, when you do need that particular SMU, that isn't covered by any SP yet, you can't apply it and you have to wait for the next SP containing this fix - which kind of defeats the purpose. Lukas

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: Yeah I don't like Service Packs, I think it's better to cherry pick only SMUs that are relevant to bugs that you might run into. And there's always a danger of reintroduction of bugs e.g. a SMU fixes recent bug but reintroduces bug that was fixed by

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Lukas Tribus wrote: But then again, when you do need that particular SMU, that isn't covered by any SP yet, you can't apply it and you have to wait for the next SP containing this fix - which kind of defeats the purpose. I still expect Cisco to do some kind of "hotfix",

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> James Bensley > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1:16 PM > > On 2 February 2016 at 12:47, Mikael Abrahamsson > wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, James Bensley wrote: > > > >> IOS-XR is much needed but jesus christ its been buggy as hell for us > >> on the 9000 series routers. > >

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 2 February 2016 at 15:09, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > Are you running 5+ by any chance? > >> It’s been years since IOS-XR was released on ASR9000's, no excuse now for >> basic features still not working. The TAC responses aren’t helpful either; > > I'm sorry to hear

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 2 February 2016 at 01:46, Aaron wrote: > Y'all are a hoot... > > My Cisco SE just told me that the base release of this NCS-5001 that I have > doesn't support L3VPN until the end of this month. I'll move on to testing > L2VPN til then... > > Thanks gents > > Aaron Classic

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue On 2 February 2016 at 12:47, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, James Bensley wrote: > >> IOS-XR is much needed but jesus christ its been buggy as hell for us >> on the 9000 series routers. > > >

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, James Bensley wrote: IOS-XR is much needed but jesus christ its been buggy as hell for us on the 9000 series routers. Stable, cheap, fast. Pick any two. I am not aware of any product the past 10-15 years that didn't have serious bugs at first customer shipment. If you

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On 2 February 2016 at 12:47, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, James Bensley wrote: > >> IOS-XR is much needed but jesus christ its been buggy as hell for us on >> the 9000 series routers. > > > Stable, cheap, fast. Pick any two. > > I am not aware of any product

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, James Bensley wrote: My mind is pretty set on this, their testing has been appalling (I’m obviously moaning at Cisco about this) – I’d like to know what others think. Back in the late 00:s XR for the CRS was rock solid (as long as you managed to get the thing up and

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

Yup. Their SW quality and has gone completely down the shitter (don't even get me started on their 'Applications' i.e.: Prime). They are spreading themselves too thin, trying to do too much, getting BUs to compete with one another, and we're all stuck paying the price. Their only innovation

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

ose principal place of > business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY. > > > -Original Message- >> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of >> Aaron >> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 11:06 PM >> To: ci

[c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong here or if i'm running into on mpls l3vpn/vrf issue. (I already have igp, mpls, and mp-bgp config'd and working) I create the vrf... add an interface to it... config the bgp vrf stanza, commit, then suddenly I get errors on the screen. my l3vpn ip

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

ngs House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY. -Original Message- > From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of > Aaron > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 11:06 PM > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

> I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong here or if i'm running into on > mpls l3vpn/vrf issue. (I already have igp, mpls, and mp-bgp config'd and > working) Aaah, thats 2 hours from "sweet" to "issue" :) > I create the vrf... add an interface to it... config the bgp vrf stanza, > commit,

Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

: Monday, February 1, 2016 5:56 PM To: Adam Vitkovsky <adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk> Cc: Aaron <aar...@gvtc.com>; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue Why on earth would anything that was supposed to work actually work... Sent from my iPhone > On Fe