[82878] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cisco and the tobacco industry
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ivan Groenewald)
Sat Jul 30 20:12:22 2005
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:11:54 +0100
From: Ivan Groenewald <ivang@xtrahost.co.uk>
To: Jim McBurnett <jim@tgasolutions.com>
Cc: "Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis@MIT.EDU>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu,
"Geo." <geoincidents@nls.net>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5432D045DAFD8040BCE549749263BD002FA8D8@testsystem2.tga.local>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Hi Jim,
If I remember correctly there was some press hype about the idea of
modularising IOS just about a year ago, which inevitably culminated IOS
XR for carrier products. iirc there wasn't any talk of backports or
deployments for non carrier equipment. ( I stand to be corrected of course )
The 12000 series got XR'd and was then renamed to the XR12000. That at
least suggests that Cisco's idea could be that their current range of
switches/routers could be upgraded to XR instead of buying "new range"
equipment. I surely hope this turns out to be the policy on all Cisco
ranges at the end of the day.
cheers,
ivan
Jim McBurnett wrote:
>QUOTE
>From: Ivan Groenewald [mailto:ivang@xtrahost.co.uk]
>
>
>IMHO IOS should be completely modular. ie SNMP/QOS/BGP etc should be a
>loadable module etc. In the event of you patching a service specific
>bug, you'd only upload the new modules and insmod them. I'd be very
>happy if the Cisco router fairy would write and backport such an IOS.
>That should end this idiotic router rebooting nonsense that the internet
>is plagued with, for the most part.
>/QUOTE
>
>
>If I remember correctly, This Exactly where Cisco has said they are
>going...
>
>With the IOS XR Just as the beginning..
>
>Does anyone else remember this?
>
>Jim
>
>
>
