Just an update one this. We switched several units to 16.12.3 and things seem to be better. Still waiting on TAC, they want to open a separate case on each unit, and analyze the far end. They've also indicated that all of the issues with switching SPF for SFP+ should be fixed in 16.9.4, or a previous release. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So far 16.12.3 has recognized all the SFP and SFP+ that we've thrown at it, including after-market (guaranteed cisco compatible). We're still testing, but things look a lot more promising now.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 5:44 AM Philip Olsson <[email protected]> wrote: > Cisco NCS540, I'm currently deploying it and depending on what you expect, > it can be 'meh'. Replacement for asr9k PE , it is not. Maybe for 7600's.. > But for just basic services and ports it seems to work out fine. > > Or you could look at the Juniper MX204 - not that much more than the > NCS540 and people seem really happy with it. > > Mvh > Philip > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > > Från: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] För Shawn L > > Skickat: den 19 mars 2020 13:35 > > Till: Cisco Network Service Providers <[email protected]> > > Ämne: Re: [c-nsp] ASR 920 Strange SFP behavior > > > > That's interesting. After reading David's reply, I rebooted one of the > 920s that > > has been having issues and went to bed (no important traffic on it > yet). This > > morning -- the interfaces it couldn't identify yesterday (or several > days before > > that) are now all correctly identified. > > > > I'll have to go to the site and check to see if they will come up when I > attach > > something to them, but at least now they're identified correctly. > > There's been at least one reboot of the system -- I configured it, then > drove it > > to the site and installed it. So maybe it needs 2 reboots to work? This > will be > > an interesting update to the TAC case "rebooted <again> and now it > appears > > to work". > > > > I'm not sure at this point that this is a platform we want to deploy. > > We've had fine luck with the 12CZ and the 4SZ, but the 12SZ seem to > still have > > some issues they need to work out. > > > > Any other boxes with similar features that people are using instead? > MPLS, a > > mix of 1 and 10 gig, DC power. > > > > Shawn > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:32 PM David H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think this is due to switching between SFP and SFP+. In > > > this particular case, the switch has never had any SFPs or SFP+ in it, > > > it's brand new. > > > > > > In my experience, expect it to happen in both of these scenarios. > > > Also, if you have external authentication configured on your device, > > > that's a good way to have the script fail execution as well, unless > > > you've created some arbitrary priv15 account on your auth server. > > > > > > Dual rate ports on this box need to be handled with care and patience. > > > Switching optics around rapidly (measured in minutes), or expecting > > > immediately accurate link lights are good ways to get bitten. A reload > > > *with optics inserted* should resolve it, but that takes its sweet > > > time too. > > > > > > Some bedtime reading... I mean, nightmare fuel: > > > > > > https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/asr920/configuration/gui > > > de/chassis/b_Chassis_Guide_xe-16-5-asr920/using-dual-rate-port.pdf > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18/03/2020 23:47, Shawn L wrote: > > > > I don't think this is due to switching between SFP and SFP+. In > > > > this particular case, the switch has never had any SFPs or SFP+ in > > > > it, it's brand new. Fire up, accept the license agreement, reload. > > > > Install new IOS, reload, provision, plug-in. I also have one where > > > > the SFP+ in slots > > > > 8-11 work fine, but a SFP inserted into slots 0 or 1 doesn't come up > > > > and still thinks it's 10 gig. Also tried to set the speeds manually > > > > (speed > > > > 1000 for example) but it tells me the command isn't valid for the > > > interface. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:44 AM Brian Turnbow <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Shawn, > > > >> > > > >> Are you by chance switching from sfp to sfp+ on the ports by chance? > > > >> Because the 12sz launches scripts when changing speeds that > > > >> basically default the config and rewrites it, but doesn't always > work as > > planned.. > > > >> There was a discussion here about it a while back. > > > >> https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2019-August/106974.html > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Brian > > > >> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On > > > >>> Behalf > > > Of > > > >>> Shawn L > > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 1:09 PM > > > >>> To: Cisco Network Service Providers <[email protected]> > > > >>> Subject: [c-nsp] ASR 920 Strange SFP behavior > > > >>> > > > >>> I have a group of 5 Cisco ASR-920-12SZ switches / routers that are > > > >>> all exhibiting some strange behavior with respect to ports and > > > >>> SFPs. This > > > >> is the > > > >>> new 12 port 10 gig device that just came out relatively recently. > > > >>> I > > > >> also have > > > >>> some of the 920-12CZ and 4CZ that aren't having the issue. Just > > > >> wondering if > > > >>> anyone else has seen this before or has any ideas. > > > >>> > > > >>> All the routers are running the same firmware -- 16.9.4. I can > > > >>> take a > > > >> working > > > >>> SFP out of one switch (doesn't matter if it's Cisco branded or > > > >>> not) and > > > >> insert it > > > >>> in another, and it doesn't get recognized. The port sometimes > > > >>> comes > > > up, > > > >> but > > > >>> doesn't pass traffic. The SFP is sometimes recognized, sometimes > > > >> recognized > > > >>> incorrectly (ie type is correct, speed is wrong). > > > >>> > > > >>> If I take that same SFP and put it back in the 'first' switch, it > > > >>> gets > > > >> recognized > > > >>> and comes right up. When the SFP is unrecognized, or "partially" > > > >> recognized > > > >>> the list of available commands for the interface also changes. IE > > > >> 'negotiation > > > >>> auto / no negotiate auto" is sometimes available, at other times > > > >>> it's > > > an > > > >>> unrecognized command. I'm guessing that whether the commands are > > > >>> available or not depend on what it thinks the SFP supports. > > > >>> > > > >>> Tried adding the 'transceiver permit pid all', but it didn't help. > > > >>> The > > > >> cisco > > > >>> switch commands for unsupported transceivers (service unsupported- > > > >>> transceiver/no errdisable detect cause gbic-invalid) don't appear > > > >>> to be accepted. I wonder if there's a different set of commands > > > >>> for this > > > >> platform. > > > >>> At first (after confirming that I wasn't crazy) we thought it > > > >>> might be > > > >> an issue > > > >>> with licensing.... The licensing on them is rather strange. > > > >>> > > > >>> "If no pluggable is present in the router at bootup, then any six > > > >>> ports > > > >> can be > > > >>> used as default licenses (6x10G + 6x1G = 66G). However, if 10G > > > >> pluggables are > > > >>> present in all the ports of router at bootup, then the first six > > > >>> port > > > >> are marked > > > >>> for default licenses. The remaining ports can be used as licensed > > > ports." > > > >>> > > > >>> But after checking, we have the same licenses on all of the boxes. > > > We've > > > >>> opened a TAC case about the issue, but haven't really gotten > > > >>> anywhere > > > >> with it > > > >>> as of yet. > > > >>> > > > >>> Shawn > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > > >>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
