[c-nsp] boot images for 72xx to fix in 4M flash

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

How exactly is a suggested fix that can only be done
on the newer NPEs which have 8MB bootflash going
to help the older NPE's with older rommons that have
the 4MB bootflash? ;-)

Seriously, though, how many devices does this affect?

Just out of curiosity I went to our spares and pulled
the FE I/O cards out of the 7206's we have in spares,
both of these appear to have 1 SOCKETED flash SIMM.
(they both come up as 4MB bootflash devices)
Aren't these the bootflash devices?  Can't these be
replaced with larger flash SIMMS?

Or am I looking at the wrong thing?

I also noticed the rommon chips are EPROMS,
both of them are labeled ROMMON V11.1(10)
Is it possible to download binary images of later rommons
from Cisco and use an eprom programmer to update
these so that they will boot directly from the pcmcia
flash cards?  Or can I order a new rom?

Ted


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:rodunn at cisco.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 5:08 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Rodney Dunn; Ian Dickinson; Robert E.Seastrom;
>cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp] boot images for 72xx to fix in 4M flash
>
>
>It's better to just not load the boot image at all
>if it's not required. The newer rommons on newer NPE's
>can do that. There isn't any development going to be
>done on these older boot images other than just
>fixing a bug if one shows up. They *may* if possible
>try and get a more recent image to fit by inspecting
>yet again what has creeped in. It may not happen but
>they are going to try. I don't expect they will do
>anything above that at this stage in the product lifecycle.
>
>Rodney
>
>On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 10:36:34PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:rodunn at cisco.com]
>> >Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:29 AM
>> >To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> >Cc: Ian Dickinson; Rodney Dunn; Robert E.Seastrom;
>> >cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> >Subject: Re: [c-nsp] boot images for 72xx to fix in 4M flash
>> >
>> >
>> >On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 09:23:59AM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I would guess then that 12.0.23 S6 is deferred as well.
>> >
>> >They were deferred but without going in to the details
>> >I was able to get them posted back. I'll have to leave it
>> >at that.
>> >
>>
>> This came up once before, as I recall Cisco deferred a bunch of
>> boot images for exceeding the 4MB size a couple years ago.
>>
>> Obviously someone forgot about doing that.
>>
>> >
>> >We are going to try our best to get the image size down if
>> >possible via:
>> >
>> >CSCsc63112
>> >Externally found moderate defect: Assigned (A)
>> >7200 boot images exceed 4M bootflash due to image size growth
>> >
>> >*without* removing old device driver support but it may be
>> >impossible but at least they are going to try.
>> >
>>
>> Rodney,
>>
>> Would it be possible to post TWO boot images of the same version,
>> one that has ONLY support for ethernet PA's and the other which
>> has ONLY support for serial PAs?
>>
>> The idea would be that you could then fit all of the variations of the
>> ethernet PA's in one image, most people would use that, and all
>> the variations of serial PA's in the other image which would be used
>> by folks remote-booting 7200 series?
>>
>> One advantage of that as well would be for example when we reboot
>> our 7206vxr (with a 4MB bootflash chip) when it comes up the bootcode
>> helpfully activates all the atm and serial interfaces, then those all
>> almost
>> immediately deactivate when the main image is loading, then reactivate
>> again.  As several of those interfaces go to feeds, the BGP
>peers on the
>> other end see us come up, then go down, then come up again.  I'd just
>> as soon not activate those interfaces during the loading of the boot
>> code,
>> and removing support for the ATM PA"s from the bootflash would thus
>> have a helpful side-effect.
>>
>> >
>> >> Netflow is probably completely useless either way for this.
>> >
>> >It had nothing to do with this for the boot images it was
>> >done for consistency which is the only reason I was able
>> >to get those two posted back for now until and if we can
>> >get it really resolved via: CSCsc63112
>> >
>>
>> I figured that, but I couldn't resist poking fun anyhow.
>>
>> Ted
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/199 - Release
>Date: 12/13/2005
>