[c-nsp] Yet another "wont fix because its on the 7500"

[Joe Maimon]

Rodney,

My sincere appreciation for yours and your colleagues efforts on my behalf.

Thank you.

Joe

Rodney Dunn wrote:

> Joe,
> 
> I had a meeting with deveopment on this today. They are investigating
> how much work it would take to get this feature combination to work
> even though it was never intended to work on this platform.
> 
> Their plan is to get back with me in 1 week with a yes or no decision
> and I'll pass it on to you.
> 
> I tried to convey both sides of the issue to them and I also understand
> their position. At the end of the day it's their call to make.
> 
> Rodney
> 
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 12:01:07PM -0400, Rodney Dunn wrote:
> 
>>>Understandably, however, I am quite dissapointed with the answer received.
>>
>>We are still trying to see what can be done. I'm just trying to make
>>it understood that some things on the surface would appear to be "just
>>a simple change" and that's not always the case.
>>
>>
>>>I suppose this means that contrary to an outsiders assumption, this is a 
>>>deal more than a five line fix, or even hack.
>>
>>That's exactly right.
>>
>>
>>>I am quite happy testing the unsupported features for you guys, I seem 
>>>to do that every now and then anyways. I dont see how it would pose any 
>>>problem if its unsupported and works as opposed to it being unsupported 
>>>and doesnt work.
>>
>>We'd much prefer unsupported and it work for sure or either not configurable.
>>
>>
>>>I suppose a public appeal for all those that would like to be able to 
>>>have pppoe intefaces in a vrf with mpls (7500) to make themselves heard 
>>>is in order.
>>
>>On record for that platform there have been two customer request ever
>>attached to that bug. So it's not amazing that work was never done to fix
>>it by adding the new feature functionality. The other customer was moving
>>their BB agg connections to a 72xx anyway so it ended there.
>>
>>
>>>Even though pppoe is not distributed, you can easily do 250-500 users on 
>>>each rsp4, if everything else is being distributed.
>>
>>No argument there. But again, it's still not recommended.
>>
>>
>>>Note that I have long since lost hope for
>>>
>>>- DCEF support turned on per subinteface
>>
>>Never happen most likely. Same as for disabling dCEF on a per LC basis.
>>
>>
>>>- DCEF PPPoE as per L2TP and GRE (if those are in, how difficult is it 
>>>to do pppoe?)
>>
>>The 75xx is not taking on new features for the most par.
>>
>>
>>>The main conclusion is that the only thing the 7500 is usefull for is T1 
>>>aggregation and maybe a little dot1q.
>>
>>Depends on the customer network. 
>>
>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Rodney Dunn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joe,
>>>>
>>>>It just so happens the TAC engineer that has this case sits beside
>>>>me. I'd been working with him on this to try and get a clear message
>>>>from the BU's. This is one of the main problems with the 75xx.
>>>>
>>>>You can configure about every feature in IOS on it but they
>>>>are not all tested/supported due to it's distributed switching
>>>>architecture. This is one such feature combination.
>>>>
>>>>We have passed the information to the PM's of the MPLS and
>>>>75xx BU and it's their decision to make if they will dedicate
>>>>the time/resources to rewrite and set up testbeds to verify this
>>>>feature combination. Given only one or two customers have ever
>>>>asked for this on the 75xx it will probably not get added.
>>>>
>>>>It's more than just fixing the switching vector to handle the
>>>>rewrites in the MPLS path. For us to claim support we have to
>>>>add it in testbeds to it's constantly tested and that is a business
>>>>decision by the BU's. The TAC engineer was trying very hard to get
>>>>the right answer for you even though it wasn't the answer you (or
>>>>us either for that matter) we were hoping to get.
>>>>
>>>>I'm still trying to see if we can get it to work in the code without
>>>>a lot of extra work but it's not looking too good.
>>>>
>>>>We can take this offline.
>>>>
>>>>Rodney
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 05:03:43PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>CSCed78665 Title: ICMP Echo-reply from c7507s tagged int. have corrupted 
>>>>>PPPoE header
>>>>>
>>>>>Took over six months for TAC to come back and say
>>>>>
>>>>>Since 7500 isnt targetted as broadband aggregation, its perfectly 
>>>>>acceptable that packets from tagged interfaces cant output properly to 
>>>>>pppox interfaces.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is crap.
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>>>>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> 
>