On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 21:00, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd be curious to know if you've had any operational issues that you > > share with regards to IOS-XR at the access layer, because it's not > > clear to me what you mean by "too heavy". > > RPL is great, but too verbose. IOS XE is not as rich as RPL, but it's > simple enough to deploy and troubleshoot.
That's one of the reasons I like XR at the each, the RPL is great. Also even if you're behind on your automation jazz, the reality is that having "commit" functionality on the CLI which doesn't apply config if it's syntactically invalid *is* helping to reduce errors at the edge. > IOS XE upgrades is upload, reboot, done. I think we all know how IOS XR > and its band of SMU's is. Yeah I won't deny I really like this about classical IOS and IOS-XE and I'm saddened that Cisco still haven't sorted out IOS-XR in this regard. Cheers, James. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
