[c-nsp] Cisco: "MPLS is supported only on PFC3b PFC3bXL" - Not according to your website.

[Anthony D Cennami]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So, I've had the unfortunate experience of assisting a client with an
MPLS deployment using Cisco's SUP720 (PFC3A).

As any network consultant would, I verified the specifications of the
equipment being used against Cisco(.com's) own website, and indeed the
functionality I required was listed as available.

However, in conversing with some of the community at large, and Cisco
directly, I am left with the uneasy feeling that deploying any kind of
MPLS, although 'supported' in their online literature, may effect less
than desirable results for this client and their customers.

The original goal here is this (as previously submitted to this list as:
"EoMPLS (6500/3750M) Network Validation/Question"):

EoMPLS PtP; 3750 Metro doing EoMPLS, 6500 Sup720 serving as an LSR.
Real simple, 4 devices, two FE hand-offs w/ GE and OSM in between.
Sounds easy enough, and according to Cisco (online, not via phone or
email) should be fully supported.

Cisco link showing a side by side comparison of the Sup720 PFC3a and
Sup720 PFC3bXL, both supporting MPLS:
http://cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2706/products_data_sheet09186a00802129b3.html

Excerpts from emails with Cisco employees, a) asking for the link that
says MPLS is even supported on PFC3a (after a phone call where I was
informed it was not supported at all) and, b) excerpt of the email where
I was told that MPLS is NOT supported, and that any MPLS customers
should be using 3bXL.

a) "HI Anthony,
Please send me the url which you are mentioning about the support of
mpls  on pfc3a."

b) "Can you please contact your account team. MPLS is supported only on
PFC3b PFC3bXL Supervisor 720s. They should be able to handle swapping
the PFC3a to PFC3bs.

My question is this:  Has anybody else here had a similar unfortunate
experience, and if so, what were the results of your endeavor?

Rarely am I the type jumping to the cliché 'false advertising' claim,
but my experience thus far, and support, or inherent lack thereof, from
Cisco's TAC and/or documentation leaves me few other conclusions to draw.

Any experiences, comments or results/repurcussions of similar
deployments would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Anthony Cennami

- --

Anthony Cennami
Managing Partner
neuPATH, LLC
- ----------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  The information contained herein,
including Message Body, Attachment(s) and Recipients, is
confidential in nature and intended only for the delivery
to and Authorized Use by aforementioned and included
Recipients, Addressee(s), Entities and/or Authorized
Delivery Agents effecting the confidential dissemination
of the information contained herein to said parties.
If you are not an intended recipient of this communication
please take notice that any redistribution or copying of
this message, or any data or attachments included, is
UNAUTHORIZED and may be unlawful.  If you believe you
received this communication in error please immediately
destroy all copies and/or reference related hereto and
immediately notify the sender.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBLXFL7cvhxFHN1r0RAoRZAKCzU+BYLnWhFl//rvGssEaeuPpprACfaPj3
cFbPJzhUuDfcfkq2OOvxfp0=
=NJ3x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----