From: Richard Gallagher (rgallagh@cisco.com)
Date: Thu Jan 19 2006 - 00:04:01 GMT-3
I've tested with SXF and see a very quick failover too, 2-3 secs.
Can you post "sh mod | i SUP" and "sh red" see we can check it working ok?
Ronald Fugate wrote:
> Thanks Jeremy,
>
> There seems to be some consistent answers with the sxd code embedded
> here.
> I have sent an email off to my AS rep just now asking about this.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy O'Dette [mailto:jeremyodette@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:59 PM
> To: Ronald Fugate; messageboard@ventrefamily.com
> Cc: jslauer@hotmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: sso issues
>
> We recently deployed a pair of 6513s sup720/12.2(18)SXD6/native mode and
> the
> sso on those is rock solid. I know because I tested the hell out of
> them
> since these were going in our core. Failover was consistently 2-3
> seconds.
>
>
>
> Jeremy O'Dette
> CCIE #14973
> jeremyodette@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: "Ronald Fugate" <RFugate@amdocs.com>
>> Reply-To: "Ronald Fugate" <RFugate@amdocs.com>
>> To: "James Ventre" <messageboard@ventrefamily.com>
>> CC: "joshua lauer" <jslauer@hotmail.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> Subject: RE: sso issues
>> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:54:23 -0600
>>
>> That's good information to know.
>> Thanks James; I will ask our AS rep about the sxf vs. sxd.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: James Ventre [mailto:messageboard@ventrefamily.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:51 PM
>> To: Ronald Fugate
>> Cc: joshua lauer; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> Subject: Re: sso issues
>>
>> I've seen no major issues with SSO on SXF. But I've heard from a
> number
>> of folks that the SXD train is far more stable. It was even
> recommended
>> to a customer of mine during a cisco audit. IIRC they were on SXE.
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>>
>> Ronald Fugate wrote:
>>> About 30 seconds delay on native.
>>>
>>> Cisco believes there is a hardware issue buried in here somewhere.
>>>
>>> I have 11 6500's (06's, 09's and 13's) I have to deploy this on next
>>> month
>>> And was hoping that they were right so I could just verify the
>> hardware.
>>> Just wanted to verify here if anyone has seen any issues to this.
>>>
>>> Can't afford to take any chances in production.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your quick response.
>>>
>>
>> The information contained in this message is proprietary of Amdocs,
>> protected from disclosure, and may be privileged.
>> The information is intended to be conveyed only to the designated
>> recipient(s)
>> of the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended
>> recipient,
>> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, use, distribution or
>> copying of
>> this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>> If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
>> immediately
>> by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
>> Thank you.
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
> The information contained in this message is proprietary of Amdocs,
> protected from disclosure, and may be privileged.
> The information is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s)
> of the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, use, distribution or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
> by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 07:45:49 GMT-3