[c-nsp] 12.0.30S (NPE-150)

Wed Jan 12 08:27:40 EST 2005

If I would have know the answer to the 8xx question
I would have answered it.  I didn't.

I actually did do some quick searches but didn't
find the answer.

Rodney

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:02:32PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:rodunn at cisco.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 12:59 PM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Cc: Roy; 'cisco-nsp'
> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 12.0.30S (NPE-150)
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:04:09PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > > > [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Roy
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 11:34 PM
> > > > Cc: 'cisco-nsp'
> > > > Subject: RE: [c-nsp] 12.0.30S (NPE-150)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From what I can tell on CCO, the following have reached
> > end-of-life for
> > > > software upgrades
> > > >
> > > > NPE-100
> > > > NPE-150
> > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps341/prod_eol_noti
> > > > ce09186a00
> > > > 8032d41c.html
> > > > NPE-200
> > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps341/prod_eol_noti
> > > > ce09186a00
> > > > 8032d592.html
> > > > NPE-175
> > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps341/prod_eol_noti
> > > > ce09186a00
> > > > 80092106.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but the NPE is a component of a router, Cisco releases
> > IOS for routers,
> > > not for components.
> > >
> > > What EOL means for components in terms of IOS I think is
> > something along the
> > > lines of "we won't deliberately remove support for it but if
> > we need the
> > > space in the image or there's a conflict, support goes"
> > >
> > > I'm sure if there had been an easy way to avoid it with CSCec14039 or
> > > CSCee04235
> > > they wouldn't have knocked NPE 100 and 150 support.
> >
> > You are correct that we would have prevented this if we could have
> > without extensive amounts of work.
> >
> 
> There's certain axioms in the industry - one is don't piss your
> installed base off.  I don't have access to the Cisco corporation
> internal sales secrets but I'll swear on a stack of Bibles that
> somewere buried in Cisco is a formula that among it's inputs
> has the number of 7200's containing NPE 100,150,200, etc. still
> in service.
> 
> You can assign all the EOL dates you want, but as long as that
> sales formula is still pooping out numbers of installed NPE200's
> that exceed some critical threshold, your developers aren't
> going to be allowed to write them all off with impunity.  And
> after all the EOL date itself is nothing more than a marketing
> doohicky intended to frighten children into deinstalling perfectly
> good running Cisco equipment and replacing it with brand new perfectly
> good Cisco equipment, thereby keeping the money flowing.  If
> the installed base sits on their fat asses and ignores EOL's as
> a group, and continues to keep those NPE200's in service, your
> hands are pretty much tied.
> 
> Of course eventually that old gear will go away, even if not
> as quickly as Cisco's sales group would like, it will eventually
> go away.  I'm just curious as to how far along that you really
> are.  Obviously there were not nearly as many NPE 100's and 150's
> that went out the door as NPE 200's, thus it was a no brainer to
> drop support for them.  My guess is the NPE200 is a much
> different story - most used 7xxx series routers I've seen
> on the secondary market have them, few ever had NPE150's.
> 
> > > But those were internal
> > > microcode bugs, to fix them they probably had to make the
> > microcode bigger
> > > for the NPE's which meant no room left for the NPE 100 and
> > 150 microcode.
> >
> > It didn't have anything to do with microcode but to explain the
> > internals is more information that I am allowed to divulge.
> >
> 
> Me bad - I should have used the generic terminology "black box"
> rather than "microcode"
> 
> Don't worry about it - if I really wanted to know about the
> secret internals I could probably find the information in
> a book on Amazon. :-)  If I recall there were a number of
> Cisco internals books that had new revisions that were a
> lot more detailed after your last IOS source code leak...
> 
> > Sorry..I help where I can.
> >
> 
> So, I guess you aren't allowed to divulge the info on
> the 827 cookies either? ;-)
> 
> Bad move on using that architecture on something that your
> going to OEM to the ISP market for retail end users to use
> as DSL modems.  Most ISP's are short on cash
> and long on techs sitting around with debuggers and liking
> to take things apart - and a stack of $300  827 routers that
> have come back from end user customers (who we all know
> mistreat gear terribly as a matter of routine) that have
> fried nvram isn't going to be thrown away in the trash by
> an ISP like a corporation would do.  Instead they are going
> to take it apart and if in the process some of Cisco's secrets
> get spilled - oh dear!
> 
> These are the same people that ported Linux to your stuff,
> by the way:
> 
> http://www.uclinux.org/ports/
> 
> I think Cisco made a big mistake abandoning the 6xx DSL CPE
> gear.  The 827 has more bells and whistles but it's easier
> to break, and the only other DSL CPE manufacturer that even
> comes close to Nescreen i mean Cisco's 6xx CPEs in terms of
> reliability is Westell.  Everything else on the market is pure
> garbage.
> 
> Ted