[c-nsp] NCS-5001 - MPLS L3VPN Issue

[Adam Vitkovsky]

> James Bensley
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1:16 PM
>
> On 2 February 2016 at 12:47, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, James Bensley wrote:
> >
> >> IOS-XR is much needed but jesus christ its been buggy as hell for us
> >> on the 9000 series routers.
> >
> >
> > Stable, cheap, fast. Pick any two.
> >
> > I am not aware of any product the past 10-15 years that didn't have
> > serious bugs at first customer shipment. If you want something that
> > works, wait 1-2 years after first customer shipment and try it, then
> > it usually works. Now, at that time it's not fast and cheap anymore...
>
>
> This paradigm only goes so far, Cisco have missed some very basic testing
> indeed. I mean, it looks to us like they've barely tested the code and just
> shipped it. We've got a nice race condition at the minute an amature
> programmer could spot. Processes getting stuck in an infinite loop and
> locking up the CPU.
>
Are you running 5+ by any chance?

> It’s been years since IOS-XR was released on ASR9000's, no excuse now for
> basic features still not working. The TAC responses aren’t helpful either;

I'm sorry to hear that as I have very positive experiences solving cases with XR team in Europe.
And if the guy on the line did not know how to solve some hardcore problem he would get me the SME, a gentleman who designed the particular technology on XR so we could have a private techtorial for couple of hours to get it solved.

> things like "running an Inter-AS MPLS Option B and BGP-LU at the same time
> is not supported" - So we can have labelled VPN routes, or labelled GRT
> routes but not both? In this day and age! Someone once said to us “Inter-AS
> MPLS Opt C isn’t supported at all” - which we were running on the PE/ASBR
> under investigation. We’ve had bucket loads of issues/TAC cases (we are still
> opening TAC cases at a decent rate).
That's striking.
I don't know about that as I have been running labelled-unicast and vpnv4 AFs in the lab just fine.
So which part of the Inter-AS MPLS OptC is not supposed to work according to TAC please?

My stance on this is that I'd beaten the kit to death in the lab anyways before deployment so even if Cisco would swear there are no bug I'd do my own scrutiny.
On the other hand having to report elemental bugs sucks. But is it the case on x.x.3 or x.x.4 version of the code please or was I just lucky or ignorant?

adam


        Adam Vitkovsky
        IP Engineer

T:      0333 006 5936
E:      Adam.Vitkovsky at gamma.co.uk
W:      www.gamma.co.uk

This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmaster at gamma.co.uk

Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office is at 5 Fleet Place London EC4M 7RD and whose principal place of business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.