Mailing List Archive

On 09/11/2020 23:33, Scott Voll wrote:

> 16.9.6 or 16.12.4?
> and Why?
>
> Any issues seen in the 16.12 line? I've seen some unexplained reboots in
> the 16.9.5 train that TAC can't explain so need to upgrade. 16.9.6 is the
> Starred release. I've not been impressed with the whole 16.9.x train over
> the last two years so really thinking hard about 16.12.4.

Found some issues with 16.12.4 in relation to 9200 switches in larger
stacks if that's likely to have any bearing on your decision. Notably
that the 48PXG switches will only stack to four high. If you go with
five then a random stack member will fail to join the stack. Issue
raised with TAC on this. I have a boatload of 48Ps on 16.09 where this
behaviour is not exhibited. Haven't yet tried downgrading the
48PXGs/upgrading the 48Ps to see how this might manifest itself.

Gary

_______________________________________________
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/

I'm still running 3650/3850's 4-8 switch stacks. primary stack switch
reboots. No logs created to help TAC figure out why. has happened on
multiple stacks over the time we have been on 16.9.x train.

your issue on the 9200's does not make me feel much better.

Scott


On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:40 PM Gary Smith <lists@l33t-d00d.co.uk> wrote:

> On 09/11/2020 23:33, Scott Voll wrote:
>
> > 16.9.6 or 16.12.4?
> > and Why?
> >
> > Any issues seen in the 16.12 line? I've seen some unexplained reboots in
> > the 16.9.5 train that TAC can't explain so need to upgrade. 16.9.6 is
> the
> > Starred release. I've not been impressed with the whole 16.9.x train
> over
> > the last two years so really thinking hard about 16.12.4.
>
> Found some issues with 16.12.4 in relation to 9200 switches in larger
> stacks if that's likely to have any bearing on your decision. Notably
> that the 48PXG switches will only stack to four high. If you go with
> five then a random stack member will fail to join the stack. Issue
> raised with TAC on this. I have a boatload of 48Ps on 16.09 where this
> behaviour is not exhibited. Haven't yet tried downgrading the
> 48PXGs/upgrading the 48Ps to see how this might manifest itself.
>
> Gary
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/