From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 12:08:52 GMT-3
Consult Gibbon. This is beginning to sound like the latter part of
"Decline and Fall of the Rommon Empire."
At 3:16 PM +0100 5/9/02, Johann Dutoit wrote:
>Dave
>
>Have you used SRM with multicast (& Tested under load with a
>traffic generator like smartbits)?
>
>I have heard colleages mention that it is not as good with complex
>multicast, but I dont have hard evidence to back this up. I have had
>one installation where the customer though a 4 router HSRP config is
>too complex for them to maintain. The only thing that worked was
>Rommon (a Cisco suggestion) We found leaving the 2nd MSFC
>unconfigured caused strange results.
>
>Regds
>
>Johann
>
>>>> MADMAN <dmadlan@qwest.com> 09/05/02 15:03:42 >>>
> Who in the world said SRM is not supported by Cisco????
>
> SRM works well and I prefer it over config sync in systems with dual
>MSFC's. It takes three whole commands and your up and running. I am
>running SRM in the lab right now and at serverl customer sights.
>
> Why would you want to leave the second MSFC in ROMMON? I never heard
>of this option as it seems redicules on it's face since the reason I
>assume you bought two SUP/MSFC's is for redundancy.
>
> Dave
>
>"Waters, Kivas (UK72)" wrote:
>>
>> I am looking at implementing SRM within a gigabit MAN consisting of 8 Cat
>> 6509's. Only 1 MSFC per chassis is required so SRM seems like a good
>> option. Leaving the second MSFC with a blank config is not supported by
>> Cisco and putting the MSFC into ROMMON mode is only supported until Dec 200
2
>> according to Cisco documentation on the web. In contrast TAC say that SRM
>> is not at all supported by Cisco.
>>
>> http://www.cisco.sh/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/sw_6_3/confg_gd/
r
>> edund.htm#xtocid1228929
>>
>> Does anyone have any informational titbits to offer wrt SRM?
>>
> > best regards
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:53 GMT-3