[c-nsp] ASR920 Port Licensing

[Bryan Holloway]

Don't get me started on ASR920 serial management ...


On 2/24/21 7:48 PM, joe mcguckin wrote:
> I refuse to buy in to ’Smart Licensing’ and ‘Port Licensing’. So far, we have been able to avoid buying
> from vendors who practice such anti-customer policies.
> 
> I refuse to buy products with licensing schemes that require the equipment to ‘phone home’ or where a vendor
> through an error could remotely disable feature sets or the unit itself. (License keys, as implemented prior to IOS V15 are tolerable)
> I’m willing to purchase equipment from a vendor that is not as spiffy as J or C as long as it has an acceptable licensing policy and functionally works.
> That means we don’t get the nifty command language of Juniper with commit/rollback…
> 
> I also refuse to purchase equipment that requires an ‘app’ or GUI program to configure. I demand a 9 pin serial connector (or a Cisco pinout RJ45) and a
> CLI.
> 
> I think customers ought to stick to their guns and refuse to buy equipment from vendors that try to push this crap.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> Joe McGuckin
> ViaNet Communications
> 
> joe at via.net
> 650-207-0372 cell
> 650-213-1302 office
> 650-969-2124 fax
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2021, at 3:42 AM, Shawn L <shawn at rmrf.us> wrote:
>>
>> Another member just sent a question about smart licensing, and it got me
>> thinking that I should post my current issue here and see if anyone has
>> seen this before, or if I'm crazy (or Cisco is).
>>
>> Last summer I purchased 6 ASR920-12SZ-D routers/switches.  These are the
>> ones with 12 10-gig ports.  Despite some initial weirdness, port issues,
>> etc. they've actually worked rather well for us.  Last week, one of them
>> started randomly dropping offline.  After investigation, Cisco replaced
>> it.  Here's where the fun starts.
>>
>> It almost looks like Cisco changed the licensing model for these between
>> when we purchased them and when we received our RMA.  Is that possible?
>>
>> All of our (I'll call them old) routers had the default port licenses and
>> an Advanced Metro license.  All 12 ports are usable at 1 gig, and 4 will
>> operate at 10 gig.  I have 5 that are running quite happily like this at
>> remote pops right now.
>>
>> On the new router that was sent, only 6 ports are operational.  The other 6
>> are disabled, and won't enable, giving me license error when I try.
>> Cisco's telling me that the licenses on both the new and old routers match,
>> so their job is done.
>>
>> I don't think I'm crazy (but if you are, would you know) -- I have the doc
>> from cisco when we originally purchased the routers showing what license
>> level did what, though interestingly it's no longer on Cisco's website.
>> The new version of said docs seem to indicate that Cisco is correct and
>> the default license gives you 6 ports.  Which means I need to purchase an
>> additional license to make my new router behave like the one I RMA-ed.
>>
>> This is kind of a long story to ask the question but, does anyone know if
>> the licensing changed somehow?   And if it did, what does that mean for the
>> routers we've already deployed?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Shawn
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>