Mailing List Archive

No, but you might need to use the "force" and or the new command I got stuck on my first upgrade between these versions for hours before finding some obscure message board post about the force command.

Something like this:

Switch# software install file flash:cat3k_caa-universalk9.16.06.01.SPA.bin new force
Preparing install operation...

Ive upgrade many stacks from 3.6 or 3.7 to 16.x.x code
From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Harry Hambi - Atos
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 10:06 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] 3800 layer 2 Switch

This message originates from outside of your organisation.

Hi All, have some 3800 running 03.07.04E code, want to upgrade to 16.06.05. Seems like a big jump, do I need to upgrade to some intermediate code first?


Thanks
Broadcast Networks
BBC Operations
Harry Hambi BEng(Hons) MIET Rsgb

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://protect-eu.mimecast.com/s/W8ToCX64AU6wgHDW7nE?domain=puck.nether.net>
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/<https://protect-eu.mimecast.com/s/CcIPCY6gBU0rvFVzqFt?domain=puck.nether.net>
_______________________________________________
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/

On 11/Nov/19 17:41, Nick Cutting wrote:
> No, but you might need to use the "force" and or the new command I got stuck on my first upgrade between these versions for hours before finding some obscure message board post about the force command.
>
> Something like this:
>
> Switch# software install file flash:cat3k_caa-universalk9.16.06.01.SPA.bin new force
> Preparing install operation...

Doesn't seem like a big jump if it is based on the old mapping, where
IOS XE 3.x was actually IOS 15.x. IIRC, it was a way to bring the old
IOS numbering convention into the new IOS XE numbering convention.

So technically speaking, if they were still going to be keeping that,
16.x would translate to IOS XE 4.x.

Someone correct me if I'm mis-remembering.

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/

> On Nov 12, 2019, at 01:39, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:

> Doesn't seem like a big jump if it is based on the old mapping, where
> IOS XE 3.x was actually IOS 15.x. IIRC, it was a way to bring the old
> IOS numbering convention into the new IOS XE numbering convention.
>
> So technically speaking, if they were still going to be keeping that,
> 16.x would translate to IOS XE 4.x.
>
> Someone correct me if I'm mis-remembering.
>
> Mark.
>

Mark —
You’re right in the mapping between IOS-XE and IOSd blobs. Based on the older architecture of XE — there was a direct correlation between XE and the IOSd blob that was running for most of the control-plane bits.

Now that IOS-XE has moved towards “open” IOS-XE — with a drastic difference in architecture — 16.6+ is quite different “under the covers” than 3.x versions; not that you’ll see much over the top.

Either way — the upgrade won’t be bigly different.

q.
_______________________________________________
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/