juniper mx80 vs cisco asr 1000

Sat Jan 28 05:55:37 UTC 2012

On Saturday, January 28, 2012 01:42:54 PM Randy Bush wrote:

> my fear is that issu is a very complex hack to cover that
> it takes a week to boot the turkey.  and adding more
> complexity will not make things better in the long run,
> probably worse in fact.

True, and also to (well, in theory, anyway) not have to 
reload the box to launch new images in order to avoid any 
kind of downtime (even with a fixed boot process).

The problem with ISSU is that it requires specific support 
across specific protocols, features and hardware in the 
router, which invariably means having to run the latest code 
that supports the features you feel need ISSU, and/or the 
latest hardware that meets the ISSU requirements per the 
vendor (it's like chasing your own tail).

Since we schedule all maintenance in a maintenance window 
anyway (whether it's service-impacting or not), I see no 
point for ISSU. But to each their own.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120128/95f6a731/attachment.sig>