Mailing List Archive

FIB scale on ASR9001
Hi

What IPv4 FIB scale I can expect from ASR9001 ?
BGP table is growing and I want to predict how much lifespan those
boxes still have.

Thanks
Rob
_______________________________________________
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: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 04/11/2021 18:26, Robert Hass wrote:
> What IPv4 FIB scale I can expect from ASR9001 ?
> BGP table is growing and I want to predict how much lifespan those
> boxes still have.

It's Typhoon (2nd Gen) so 4M v4, or 2M v6.

Assuming you don't use any of it for anything else, e.g. labels. You're
likely to run into other limits first (PPS, RAM, cXR discontinued...)

--
Tom
_______________________________________________
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: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 11/4/21 21:40, Tom Hill wrote:

> It's Typhoon (2nd Gen) so 4M v4, or 2M v6.
>
> Assuming you don't use any of it for anything else, e.g. labels. You're
> likely to run into other limits first (PPS, RAM, cXR discontinued...)

As Tom said.

We are retiring ours, because CPU performance for just 2x IPv4 + 2x IPv6
full sessions is too much for the Freescale PPC CPU.

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/
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
We have a couple of these in production also are you planning on going with the 9902 or 9903 or are you switching altogether?

I would love it if they could just make an ASR that has 4xQSFP28 ports and a slot to add 4-6 more.

Would be perfect for us assuming that it wasn't $80,000

Thanks,
-Drew


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Mark Tinka
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 3:54 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] FIB scale on ASR9001



On 11/4/21 21:40, Tom Hill wrote:

> It's Typhoon (2nd Gen) so 4M v4, or 2M v6.
>
> Assuming you don't use any of it for anything else, e.g. labels.
> You're likely to run into other limits first (PPS, RAM, cXR
> discontinued...)

As Tom said.

We are retiring ours, because CPU performance for just 2x IPv4 + 2x IPv6 full sessions is too much for the Freescale PPC CPU.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__puck.nether.net_mailman_listinfo_cisco-2Dnsp&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw&m=C7wKxKAk_X4Dj694Z1yw_7Xb6Ikb6geQAHieGuLY3m8&s=OT9np_a5fIrYimJQHaBdBYxjCv4XflIOQlPlsp7f2kU&e=
archive at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__puck.nether.net_pipermail_cisco-2Dnsp_&d=DwICAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=OPufM5oSy-PFpzfoijO_w76wskMALE1o4LtA3tMGmuw&m=C7wKxKAk_X4Dj694Z1yw_7Xb6Ikb6geQAHieGuLY3m8&s=LG52djHtxAe9ZmsIoF5Ns724PGtiOn4hiPWec0O_4pk&e=
_______________________________________________
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: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 04:49:54PM +0000, Drew Weaver wrote:
> We have a couple of these in production also are you planning on going with the 9902 or 9903 or are you switching altogether?
>
> I would love it if they could just make an ASR that has 4xQSFP28 ports and a slot to add 4-6 more.
>
> Would be perfect for us assuming that it wasn't $80,000

Looking at the prices for 9901/02/03/04, and the licensing models for
NCS5700, I can assure you, "it won't be $80,000".

More like "$100k for the Chassis, and then another $300k for all required
licenses, to be renewed every 3 years" (subject to bazaar style discount
negotiations that make any sort of budget planning impossible)...

Cisco is a textbook example how to drive away a truly loyal user base,
and then blaim it on stock market analysts ("they said that any company
without a recurring revenue software model will be dead soon").

gert

--
"If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you
feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted
it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
>
> More like "$100k for the Chassis, and then another $300k for all required
> licenses, to be renewed every 3 years" (subject to bazaar style discount
> negotiations that make any sort of budget planning impossible)...
>
>
Ahh the bazaar style negotiations. I have flashbacks to Marrakesh and
everybody saying "Welcome my friend!" and "Good deal for you!".
Did I *really* just get a good deal on licenses or did I just get taken
advantage of? When I have to ask, it's usually the latter.
_______________________________________________
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: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 19:13, Gert Doering <gert@greenie.muc.de> wrote:

> Cisco is a textbook example how to drive away a truly loyal user base,
> and then blaim it on stock market analysts ("they said that any company
> without a recurring revenue software model will be dead soon").

Ranting and raving follows.

All (smart) executives claim the upside is because of their leadership
and downside is because of the market. While no data supports that
replacing executive A with executive B improved or reduced company
performance, that is, we don't know what qualities make companies fail
or succeed.

But I admire the beauty of something like this: https://exainfra.net/about-us/
'Under Xs’ leadership, GTT bought over 40 companies and grew annual
revenues from $65 million to over $1.6 billion during his tenure'

You have <150 words to highlight your most important achievements in
your career. And you choose to focus on the time when not only
shareholders but many classes of debt holders got completely wiped due
to over-extending.

In most other cases you just can't do that. Crane operator can't brag
about that one time when his mistake caused the building to collapse,
in fact he'll struggle to get hired by anyone aware of it. But
management has no metrics, so you are as competent and valuable as you
confidently say you are (which is why being tall helps being a
successful manager, as it's a metric we are able to compare easily and
being tall means to us being more competent).

Having said that, 5y performance:
SP500: 110%
CSCO: 90%
NOK: 20%
JNPR: 10%
PANW: 300%
ANET: 450%

So Cisco is losing to the wide market only very little, and is
outperforming other SP vendors (Huawei excluded). So the market
doesn't entirely agree with your assertion of user base attrition.

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
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: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 11/9/21 18:49, Drew Weaver wrote:

> We have a couple of these in production also are you planning on going with the 9902 or 9903 or are you switching altogether?

We moved to the MX204.

Not really that interested in Cisco anymore.

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/
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 11/9/21 19:04, Gert Doering wrote:

> Looking at the prices for 9901/02/03/04, and the licensing models for
> NCS5700, I can assure you, "it won't be $80,000".
>
> More like "$100k for the Chassis, and then another $300k for all required
> licenses, to be renewed every 3 years" (subject to bazaar style discount
> negotiations that make any sort of budget planning impossible)...
>
> Cisco is a textbook example how to drive away a truly loyal user base,
> and then blaim it on stock market analysts ("they said that any company
> without a recurring revenue software model will be dead soon").

Gert nailed it.

This is one of the (many) reasons we aren't interested in Cisco anymore.

We are phasing out all the kit we have with them. We will, however, keep
the CSR1000v, as we like that, and can support ourselves on it.

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/
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 11/10/21 08:48, Saku Ytti wrote:

> Ranting and raving follows.
>
> All (smart) executives claim the upside is because of their leadership
> and downside is because of the market. While no data supports that
> replacing executive A with executive B improved or reduced company
> performance, that is, we don't know what qualities make companies fail
> or succeed.
>
> But I admire the beauty of something like this: https://exainfra.net/about-us/
> 'Under Xs’ leadership, GTT bought over 40 companies and grew annual
> revenues from $65 million to over $1.6 billion during his tenure'

I call this the "bottom line factor". People do not care about details
anymore, both on the consumer side, and on the provider side. They just
bottom line their experience based on who was in charge.

Odd, then, that Steve Jobs had success, failure and success, at Apple,
with the last bout totally blowing the whole game out the water. After
all, if Apple nearly collapsed under him, then the metrics suggest he'd
have no chance of reviving it.

But...


> Having said that, 5y performance:
> SP500: 110%
> CSCO: 90%
> NOK: 20%
> JNPR: 10%
> PANW: 300%
> ANET: 450%
>
> So Cisco is losing to the wide market only very little, and is
> outperforming other SP vendors (Huawei excluded). So the market
> doesn't entirely agree with your assertion of user base attrition.

... I think the question was about loyal customers. Cisco know how to
drum up new business, and they know how to increase cash output from
existing business. But none of this suggests that this business is loyal.

There does come a time where you can't keep adding new business, to keep
showing growth. Unless, of course, you buy everything up and grow that
way, which we know Cisco love to do. But even that has a shelf life.
Dodge it as you may, but eventually, you need to provide value to the
paying customer base, and that always catches up with you.

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/
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 05/11/2021 07:53, Mark Tinka wrote:
> We are retiring ours, because CPU performance for just 2x IPv4 + 2x IPv6
> full sessions is too much for the Freescale PPC CPU.

I may live to regret asking this, but...

I've run a lot more than that on a 9001, and it handled it all with
aplomb. They're not as fast as an RSP440 (or RSP880) but in no way did I
find them to be liabilities when running alongside measurably faster
routers in the same ASN. They were extremely competent, in fact.

So how are you measuring this, and/or how is the issue manifesting?

--
Tom
_______________________________________________
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: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
I'll second Tom on this one. I actually have 2 9001S routers (the S is the
port / memory limited license). They have 2 full feeds (V4 and V6) and
some EIGRP, and that's about it. Currently handling things fine. Though
only doing ~ 5gig in/out at this point.

Shawn

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:04 PM Tom Hill <tom@ninjabadger.net> wrote:

> On 05/11/2021 07:53, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > We are retiring ours, because CPU performance for just 2x IPv4 + 2x IPv6
> > full sessions is too much for the Freescale PPC CPU.
>
> I may live to regret asking this, but...
>
> I've run a lot more than that on a 9001, and it handled it all with
> aplomb. They're not as fast as an RSP440 (or RSP880) but in no way did I
> find them to be liabilities when running alongside measurably faster
> routers in the same ASN. They were extremely competent, in fact.
>
> So how are you measuring this, and/or how is the issue manifesting?
>
> --
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> 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: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 11/10/21 20:00, Tom Hill wrote:

> I may live to regret asking this, but...
> I've run a lot more than that on a 9001, and it handled it all with
> aplomb. They're not as fast as an RSP440 (or RSP880) but in no way did I
> find them to be liabilities when running alongside measurably faster
> routers in the same ASN. They were extremely competent, in fact.
>
> So how are you measuring this, and/or how is the issue manifesting?

At various peering locations where the ASR9001 had been running for some
years, it was starting to struggle to manage several hundred sessions
(none of which were a full table). The router kept sending too many
Refresh notices to neighbors, across a number of versions of IOS XR
code. Cisco couldn't figure it out, and we kept losing sessions due to
the nuisance we'd become across the exchange fabric. What was clear was
that the issue kept growing as peers increased routes, or as we added
neighbors.

In applications where we had just 2x full BGP sessions, IS-IS would hang
and blackhole traffic. The issue was hard to reproduce, but every time
it happened, we knew that rebooting the router was the only solution. We
still see this issue in the few nodes we have running. The good news it
does not happen often, but also, it shouldn't.

Is the ASR9001 CPU as slow as the MX80? I would say no, but considering
it's the only non-x86 box we have, the performance delta of the control
and management plane is visible.

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/
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 11/10/21 20:47, Shawn L wrote:

> I'll second Tom on this one. I actually have 2 9001S routers (the S is the
> port / memory limited license). They have 2 full feeds (V4 and V6) and
> some EIGRP, and that's about it. Currently handling things fine. Though
> only doing ~ 5gig in/out at this point.

We have nothing against the forwarding performance of the ASR9001. It's
the control/management plane that seems to be slowing down (at least for
us, anyway) with newer code and a growing Internet DFZ.

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/
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 08:27:44AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> We have nothing against the forwarding performance of the ASR9001. It's
> the control/management plane that seems to be slowing down (at least for
> us, anyway) with newer code and a growing Internet DFZ.

"newer code" might be the key issue here - what version are you on?

Our 9001 have been extremely well-behaved in regards to BGP performance
and robustness. Not as fast as the RSP440, but still well up to the
job.

We're on 6.5.3 ("nothing interesting in newer versions, and still
supported").

gert
--
"If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you
feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted
it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 11/11/21 09:18, Gert Doering wrote:

> "newer code" might be the key issue here - what version are you on?
>
> Our 9001 have been extremely well-behaved in regards to BGP performance
> and robustness. Not as fast as the RSP440, but still well up to the
> job.
>
> We're on 6.5.3 ("nothing interesting in newer versions, and still
> supported").

We are currently running 6.7.1, mainly to fix some LDPv6 issues.

However, we started seeing this "too many BGP refresh messages" issue as
far back as 6.4.2.

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/
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 09:38, Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

> We are currently running 6.7.1, mainly to fix some LDPv6 issues.
>
> However, we started seeing this "too many BGP refresh messages" issue as
> far back as 6.4.2.

Did you run RPKI? Did you have softinbound disabled?

This would cause a refresh on every RTR update. Basically a
misconfiguration, if you run RPKI you must keep policy rejected
routes.
--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
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: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 11/11/21 09:42, Saku Ytti wrote:

>
> Did you run RPKI?

Yes.


> Did you have softinbound disabled?

Yes.


> This would cause a refresh on every RTR update. Basically a
> misconfiguration, if you run RPKI you must keep policy rejected
> routes.

What's the thought-process here?

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/
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 09:50, Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

> What's the thought-process here?

When you receive an RTR update, you change your ingress policy, and
you don't know what is the correct result without re-evaluating.

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
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: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 09:26:12AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> We are currently running 6.7.1, mainly to fix some LDPv6 issues.
>
> However, we started seeing this "too many BGP refresh messages" issue as
> far back as 6.4.2.

I seem to remember it's related to RPKI ROV (every time the RPKI server
sends new data the BGP implementation asks for a refresh to re-validate
the incoming feed).

Or at least there is something in the back of my head that says "I have
heard someone talk about this unintended side-effect of RPKI ROV, together
with a BGP setup without 'soft in always'".

Might there be a correlation in your environment?

gert
--
"If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you
feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted
it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 11/11/21 09:51, Saku Ytti wrote:

> When you receive an RTR update, you change your ingress policy, and
> you don't know what is the correct result without re-evaluating.

I'm with you now - makes sense.

And Junos defaults to always maintaining a copy of Adj-RIB-In, which is
why we don't have that issue there, non?

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/
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 at 10:08, Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

> And Junos defaults to always maintaining a copy of Adj-RIB-In, which is
> why we don't have that issue there, non?

Correct. Add 'keep none' to junos, and you'll have the same issue.

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
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: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 11/11/21 09:51, Gert Doering wrote:

> I seem to remember it's related to RPKI ROV (every time the RPKI server
> sends new data the BGP implementation asks for a refresh to re-validate
> the incoming feed).
>
> Or at least there is something in the back of my head that says "I have
> heard someone talk about this unintended side-effect of RPKI ROV, together
> with a BGP setup without 'soft in always'".
>
> Might there be a correlation in your environment?

Yes, this makes sense.

We, generally, did not run "soft-reconfiguration inbound" since the IOS
days, to save on RAM. Also, Route Refresh was the gold standard. I'm not
sure the RAM issue is a big deal anymore, considering how large it is in
routers these days...

But I can see how this creates an undesired side effect with ROV, which
then puts pressure on Route Refresh.

I have to say, we did not consider it; which hardly surprises me since
TAC didn't either.

I have read a lot of Cisco documentation on configuring ROV on IOS XE
and IOS XR, and unless something has been recently updated, this is not
one of the explicit recommendations in that documentation. I can see how
easy it is to overlook (or if you do have 'soft-reconfiguration inbound'
configured, how that significance can also be overlooked).

All that notwithstanding, the move to 100Gbps peering/transit + faster
CPU's on the MX204 is still a worthy reason to move away from the
ASR9001, for us anyway :-).

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/
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
On 11/11/21 10:10, Saku Ytti wrote:

> Correct. Add 'keep none' to junos, and you'll have the same issue.

Since we started running ROV in IOS XE in 2014, we would have hit this
issue then and allowed for it if the BGP best path evaluation process in
IOS XE did not do strange things by default, which I believe have not
yet been fixed. So we turned it off then.

We always used Juniper (MX80 included) for peering back then, so didn't
run into this given Junos' default policy.

We ran the ASR9001 for peering/transit for a long time before coming up
against this, but it makes sense that the complaints only picked up in
the last 2 years when ROV was on the rise, globally.

Thanks for the clue, Saku. Hopefully someone here has the energy to ask
Cisco to update their documentation, to make this a recommendation. I
can't be asked :-).

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/
Re: FIB scale on ASR9001 [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 10:14:16AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> I have read a lot of Cisco documentation on configuring ROV on IOS XE
> and IOS XR, and unless something has been recently updated, this is not
> one of the explicit recommendations in that documentation. I can see how
> easy it is to overlook (or if you do have 'soft-reconfiguration inbound'
> configured, how that significance can also be overlooked).

I've been extremely underwhelmed with the quality of IOS XR documentation
in many respects, ROV being one of them.

(And ROV on IOS XE is full of different eels... as if a totally different
company has implemented it, without ever speaking to someone who has
done this before, or understand what it's supposed to do)

> All that notwithstanding, the move to 100Gbps peering/transit + faster
> CPU's on the MX204 is still a worthy reason to move away from the
> ASR9001, for us anyway :-).

Yeah, not argueing that decision, just curious about the problems you
saw.

We're moving towards Arista 7280R, which is not without its own set of
surprises...

gert
--
"If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you
feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted
it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de

1 2  View All