[c-nsp] Cosmetic bug or unsupported NPE?

Saku Ytti saku+cisco-nsp at ytti.fi
Wed Feb 7 12:08:57 EST 2007


On (2007-02-07 11:35 -0500), Jon Lewis wrote:
 
> The recent security advisory says for 12.2S, to upgrade to 12.2(25)S. 
> Does that imply that all 12.2(25)S versions, i.e. 12.2.25S4 - 12.2.25S11 
> contain the fix?

Well there were three bugs, one of them will only be fixed in up-coming
12.2(25)S12 later this year. 
But frankly, I'm not sure if it's worth the wait just to get warning
message of 'sh ver', I don't see how it makes the product any more
supported.

> I'm also curious if anyone's already upgraded an NPE300 carrying full 
> routes from 12.2(18)S to 12.2.25(S).  How much less memory is available? 
> I'm just wondering how much longer these NPE300s can be nursed along 
> before we have to replace them with at least NPE400s with 512MB RAM in 
> order to hold full routes.

I run NPE300 with 12.2(25)S extensively. With 256MB + two full views I'd
recommend not to do, unless you have extremely small iBGP and no VRF.
But even with tiny iBGP and no VRF it's race against time you'll soon
loose, so start planning a design which does not require full table
in NPE300's.

Thanks,
-- 
  ++ytti


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list