[c-nsp] ASR opinions..

[Mark Tinka]

On Monday, August 22, 2011 06:10:47 AM John Elliot wrote:

> Thanks -
> > Have you implemented inter-chassis redundancy
> > before?(As our asr's will be performing so many roles,
> > dont know if this would work in our
> > environment....maybe hsrp would be a better option)

If you mean FHRP's like HSRP, VRRP or GLBP, no. But I 
suspect those should be pretty stock features with nothing 
major to worry about.

> Thanks - So
> > qos does work on the asr's correct? Was it just that
> > statistics were not working? We do "standard"
> > gold,silver,bronze on our intercaps, and also do
> > egress policies on some clients dot1q subints(Match
> > what they have marked egree on CE, and give priority
> > to certain markings)....do the asr's support this?

Yes, you should be fine if you're running the latest code. 
However, I now remember that we were unable to run QoS 
(ingress marking) on an LACP interface. Cisco call the 
feature GEC QoS, which makes you wonder if the problem will 
re-surface when doing 10Gbps LACP. At any rate, Cisco said 
this should be available in IOS XE 3.4S. Suffice it to say, 
we haven't tested this yet. That said, Cisco said QoS 
capabilities on LACP sub-interfaces was supported - weird.

One other thing that wasn't available for us at the time was 
MPLS-TE support on LACP links. We swapped these routers out 
for ASR9000's, so don't know whether MPLS-TE on LACP links 
is now possible.

Like I said, the main problems with the ASR1000 is the 
software.

> > Netflow is also something we utilise on the existing
> > 7200's - asr's netflow functional?

We're running FNF on the ASR1002's. No major drama, but then 
again we're just doing trending and TE management.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20110822/a03820a9/attachment.pgp>