cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
12115
Views
0
Helpful
32
Replies

SR520 Dissapointment

bchris999
Level 1
Level 1

I am very dissapointed with Ciscos release of the SR520. I was excited at first having a good software feature set and rack mountable (about the only ADSL router I have found that doesnt need a shelf). My dissapointment was with the CCA config software (using the latest 2.0.1 version). Having used CCA with the UC500, I was pleased with it (although I have moved away from CCA for my own system due to lack of support for EM, I will be sticking to it as much as possible for out UC500 installs to customers). However I came across the following major problems:

- ADSLoPOTS setup... the UK (and alot of europe as far as I know) use PPPoA for ADSL connections. There is no support for this within CCA

- VPN setup... trying to create a VPN tunnel between this and a Watchguard.... no support for IPSEC tunnels within CCA

- Firewall setup.... trying to create a basic firewall... no real options from the basic Low, Medium, High. I needed to allow Pings from a certain address range.

The dissapointment then continued even further when I couldnt even fall back to SDM to configure the device!!!

At this point I gave up and configured the entire thing by CLI, which resulted in the installation taking a whole day instead of a few hours.

I have since changed all our orders/quotes the include an SR520 and gone back to the 800 series. Furthermore, this is a major blow for us to move from Watchguard devices to Cisco devices (not every engineer is trained for CLI commands and we need a product with a easy but robust GUI)

I was wondering if anyone else has any comments on the SR520 outside the US? Any comments from Cisco? Is there something I have fundamentally missed with this? With CCA well into its 2.0 release I would have expected basic features like ADSL setup to be straight off the mark.

Can anyone from the UK tell me their experiences with the SR520?

32 Replies 32

Hi Chris,

Thanks for this feedback. I have forwarded your comments to the SR520 Product Management team.

Marcos

Hello

I seem to have fallen into the same trap purchased an sr520 and cannot get it to connect using the cca to the uk adsl.

I understand it can be done using the cli

Could someone explain as simply as possible how do do it

Thanks

Andrew

Hello

Thankyou for pointing me in the right direction.

I think im almost there but not quite.

If someone could look at the atached files and advice what else i need to do i would be gratefull.

all im trying to do is atach the sr520 to the uc 520with the sr520 as the gateway to the internet

or have i got it all completely wrong !!

I think it would have been a lot easier if i could have used the cca to conect to the internet with pppoatm

Thankyou

Hi Andrew,

The debug looking good as far as the SR520 is concerned, my comments are in blue. Just  a few comments on a bit of the PPP debug you captured. Sure looks good.

Aug  9 20:49:34.627: Vi2 PPP: Phase is UP    Point to Point protocol is up and IP negotiation is about to start
Aug  9 20:49:34.627: Vi2 IPCP: O CONFREQ [Closed] id 1 len 10
Aug  9 20:49:34.627: Vi2 IPCP:    Address 81.130.215.177 (0x03065182D7B1)
Aug  9 20:49:34.627: Vi2 CDPCP: O CONFREQ [Closed] id 1 len 4
Aug  9 20:49:34.627: Vi2 PPP: Process pending ncp packets
Aug  9 20:49:34.627: Vi2 IPCP: Redirect packet to Vi2
Aug  9 20:49:34.627: Vi2 IPCP: I CONFREQ [REQsent] id 1 len 10
Aug  9 20:49:34.627: Vi2 IPCP:    Address 81.134.96.1 (0x030651866001)
Aug  9 20:49:34.631: Vi2 IPCP: O CONFACK [REQsent] id 1 len 10
Aug  9 20:49:34.631: Vi2 IPCP:    Address 81.134.96.1 (0x030651866001)
Aug  9 20:49:34.675: Vi2 IPCP: I CONFACK [ACKsent] id 1 len 10
Aug  9 20:49:34.675: Vi2 IPCP:    Address 81.130.215.177 (0x03065182D7B1)
Aug  9 20:49:34.675: Vi2 IPCP: State is Open
Aug  9 20:49:34.675: Di1 IPCP: Install route to 81.134.96.1
Aug  9 20:49:34.679: Vi2 LCP: I PROTREJ [Open] id 2 len 10 protocol CDPCP (0x820
701010006)
Aug  9 20:49:34.679: Vi2 CDPCP: State is Closed
Aug  9 20:49:34.679: Vi2 CDPCP: State is Listen
Aug  9 20:49:34.679: Vi2 IPCP: Add link info for cef entry 81.134.96.1 Looks like IP Control Protocol (IPCP)has successfully negotiated as well so at this point you should be able to ping IP devices on the Internet from the SR520 command line
Aug  9 20:49:35.627:
%LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Virtual-Access2, changed state to up

Look like you configured the atm interface rather well,  should be able to ping at this point devices on the Internet from the SR520 command line.  But the firewall does not seem to be active on the  WAN dialer interface.

In terms of what to do next Marcos Hernandez produced a brief guide with a number a scenarios;

https://www.myciscocommunity.com/docs/DOC-5869

But, if you are a Value Added Reseller or Cisco partner, you should open a case with the folks at the Cisco's  Planning Design Implementation (PDI) group to pose the question on how to lay out the hardware topology that you want.  This is a free service to SMB "select" Cisco partners or VARs.  You still need to do some configuration to get the firewall working properly (if you want).

But feel free to open a case with the PDI, they are there to help with your Planning design and implementation  and make your installs successful.  But check out their website, the link to it is below;

http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/tools/helponline/pdi/index.html

I have no idea where you live, but if you need some guidance or someone to help facilitate support for you, have a word to your local pre-sales cisco Systems Engineer or the support Staff at your distributor. 

regards Dave

AFter resting the sr520 to facory I found by altering the config as per the atached file everything seems to work fine.

Perhaps others may find this usefull.

For some reason it doea seem to mess up the cca on the uc520 the outgoing dial plan will only show sip trunk not isdn and the incoming did wont show what was previously configured.

Hi Marcos,

I reported the same issues a couple of months ago (along with a bunch of other CCA complaints and bugs).

Do you know if product management intends to do anything about these issues?

Eljakim

Hi Eljakim,


These problems have been escalated and reported. I will update this thread when I hear back from the respective product owners.


Thanks,


Marcos

nsn-amagruder
Level 5
Level 5

Has the SR520 improved since this experience?  I'm not sure about trying this product for the first time and would rather stick with the ASA5500.  Any experience with creating a VPN from the SPA525G to the SR520 and/or ASA5500?

So far I don't think any of our issues have been resolved.

We moved away from the SR520 as ADSL connection point because it just is

too much of a hassle to work from the CLI.

I don't really think the Cisco engineers really understand the problem; it's

been a long time, and any in depth response has never arrived.

It's a shame really; I spent a long time writing down all kinds of bugs

and issues with the CCA, but only received a response from Cisco

after begging for it, and then the response was 'it's been sent on'.

Too bad, this CiscoCommunity forum seemed like a way to communicate

back with Cisco, but I don't think they see it as such. It feels more like

a marketing gimmick that is just a basic forum with the extra addition

of Cisco staff also roaming around and being identifiable.

Sorry if I sound skeptical or stole your threat with this comment, but

it is truely annoying.

looking at the length of time passed since weve been waiting for an update and there has been updates to cca. with nothing to address the ppp over a issue ?

Correct. It has not been addressed, nor has a timeframe to address it been given.

Basically the SR500 series is not aimed at small businesses in Europe.

Eljakim

bchris999
Level 1
Level 1

:( Well, after 6 months since my first post and no progress, the SR520 is destined to become eBay material and is to be replaced by a Draytek Vigor 2820 with a rack kit (at way under half the price too). Whilst I have myself the ability to configure these devices by hand, other engineers in the company do not therefore it is not an option to keep it without having a GUI. Would have been nice to at least see SDM support enabled for it, even as an unsupported thing.... I can't imagine it would be that much different from a 800 series router.

All,


I have asked the Product Manager for the SR500 to explain our plans and clarify positioning.

I will say that I respectfully disagree with the post that claims this Community is a marketing fad. A lot of people put their time and effort in trying to answer questions and help our resellers and customers, even when a support contract does not exist. We also use this community to gather feedback, conduct beta programs and deliver training, all that without moderation or censorship, unless the content becomes a risk and could be used maliciously.

Please keep using this community to get support and voice your opinion. Your comments are always welcome.

Marcos Hernandez

Technical Marketing Engineer

Cisco Systems, Inc.

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: