& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 3 / 6   >   >>
andropat
andropat
12/5/2012 | 1:56:22 AM
re: Cisco Sprints Ahead With HFR
Dave,

Thanks for the advise. You are right! People should start getting rid of all of their M40s and 7500s because those "active" backplanes are causing such horrible troubles. Geez I am surprised all LE and Carrier networks haven't died already using these kinds of products.

Pat
dpb
dpb
12/5/2012 | 1:56:21 AM
re: Cisco Sprints Ahead With HFR
Thanks for the advise. You are right! People should start getting rid of all of their M40s and 7500s because those "active" backplanes are causing such horrible troubles. Geez I am surprised all LE and Carrier networks haven't died already using these kinds of products.

Pat,
It's all about risk mitigation. Customers purchasing network services are demanding more from their providers in terms of features, stability and up time. If I can avoid having a single point of failure in a product to provide my customers with better service it will influence my purchasing decisions.

David Bannister
DocGonzo
DocGonzo
12/5/2012 | 1:56:19 AM
re: Cisco Sprints Ahead With HFR
Dave,

Thanks for the advise. You are right! People should start getting rid of all of their M40s and 7500s because those "active" backplanes are causing such horrible troubles. Geez I am surprised all LE and Carrier networks haven't died already using these kinds of products.

Pat

=========================================

Funny thing is five or six years ago, people would actually take this seriously. Must have been the air in the bubble or something.

Doc
andropat
andropat
12/5/2012 | 1:56:15 AM
re: Cisco Sprints Ahead With HFR
I understand about Risk mitigation and wanting to make customers happy with all the buzzwords you mentioned. Fact is software will always be the weakest link. Not an active chip on a backplane of some box. M40s ran all over the cores of most of the top providers and so far we haven't seen any LR posts with regards to them blowing up or dieing all over the place. Same goes for 7500s.

We have seen, however, config errors and s/w bugs cause major outages that have ended up on LR posts.

Pat
dpb
dpb
12/5/2012 | 1:56:14 AM
re: Cisco Sprints Ahead With HFR
I understand about Risk mitigation and wanting to make customers happy with all the buzzwords you mentioned. Fact is software will always be the weakest link. Not an active chip on a backplane of some box.

Very true, software is a weak link and this is taken into consideration too. I tend to look at the overall product and drive vendors to build better products.

M40s ran all over the cores of most of the top providers and so far we haven't seen any LR posts with regards to them blowing up or dieing all over the place. Same goes for 7500s.

Yeah, don't see many people posting RMA info here.

What vendor do you work for?

David Bannister

Flower
Flower
12/5/2012 | 1:56:14 AM
re: Cisco Sprints Ahead With HFR
That might be because hardware failures usually affect only a single router. No newspaper will write a story about a single router failure, even when it is a different router in a different city every week. But software failures can affect a whole AS (in the case of an IGP problem), or major parts of the Internet (in case of a BGP problem). Therefor the software failures will be more noticable. Sw failures might happen more often than hw failures. Or they might not. But you can't make any conclusions based on the press coverage.
andropat
andropat
12/5/2012 | 1:56:09 AM
re: Cisco Sprints Ahead With HFR
Same vendor as you.

You are right that the one off h/w failure or general RMAs that occur in all products don't make LR posts. However, if this type of design was so terrible then those failures would be happening too frequently and I guarantee it would be known more publicly.

Fact is it doesn't! Ask any large provider that deployed M40s or any LE that deployed 7500s and ask them how many failures were due to their backplanes vs. "other things" and I would bet anything the response will be obvious.

And of course we all want better products. Please continue to push!

Pat
dpb
dpb
12/5/2012 | 1:56:07 AM
re: Cisco Sprints Ahead With HFR
Same vendor as you.

I don't work for a vendor. Care to tell me more about why I don't have hardware failures and why sticking non-FRU things in a box that forces a chassis swap is a good idea?

David Bannister
Tony Li
Tony Li
12/5/2012 | 1:56:05 AM
re: Cisco Sprints Ahead With HFR

There's an important distinction to be made here between reality and perception. A system with active components on the backplane is *perceived* to be more problematic than one without. The reality of the situation, as evidenced by real statistics says that this is bunk.

However, if you want to sell to the carriers, you must deliver to both the perception AND the reality.

Tony
truelight
truelight
12/5/2012 | 1:56:02 AM
re: Cisco Sprints Ahead With HFR

Reality, Tony is that you do not want to put electronics on the backplane which if they fail lead to replacements of the backplane - this is a hardware thing.

<<   <   Page 3 / 6   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events