[c-nsp] ASR9K limitations

[Nick Hilliard]

On 27/06/2012 23:29, chip wrote:
> Not being able to insert rpl policy without having to re-do the whole
> policy.  Yes, I know you can edit it with the built-in nano, emacs, or
> vi editors, but that's kinda difficult to script, eh?  Also, you must
> have your TERM evironment var set to vt100, if it's set to xterm it
> won't work.  And yes I know you can upload it from a file, but again,
> it's the whole thing.

This is annoying in minor sort of way.  But rpl is so full of win all
around that I'm happy to overlook this.

> Console port (for at least the RSP440's) requires 8n2 setting, again,
> no big deal, but a bit annoying having to change stuff around.

Bizarre decision. I cannot understand how or why anyone would use 8N2.  Or
indeed implement rs232 as a console mechanism these days.  We live in an
ethernet world, even for oob (please see previous rants about CMP support).

> GLC-T SFP's aren't supported, SFP-GE-T's are, this seemed to change
> from 4.2.0 to 4.2.1, not the support, but the enforcement of it.

Use programmable third party transceivers instead.

There is no justification for cisco not supporting newer GLC-*
transceivers, and there is no justification for Cisco to charge their
outrageous prices for commodity third party hardware.

And just in case someone starts going on about compatibility, GLC-* refers
to a family of SFP transceivers which has encompassed many manufacturers
and even more hardware revisions since they were introduced 15 years ago.

> No RIP-NG support

That is a feature, imho.

> I really wish there was a "commit and quit"

meh.  not a biggie.

> Using ACLs to restrict telnet/ssh access  gets strange if you use
> layer-4 port definitions in your acl, just stick to source prefix.

you can use prefix sets for this, no?

Nick