Is IOS XE image unversal?

[m1xed0s]

Hi,

The IOS XE images for different platforms all have "universal" in the names. But are they really universal as interchangeable between platforms?

Here below is my scenario made me to ask question above:

I have an environment built using multiple ASR1001X and ISR4431/4331 routers and I want to create a lab to mimic the environment but prefer to not buy physical routers. So I was checking the CSR1000v...One of the key requirements for the lab is to fully mimic the same IOS-XE running on those physical routers. So for example, is IOS-XE 16.9.2 running on ASR1001X the same as the IOS-XE 16.9.2 running on CSR1000v?

Thanks!

[Simon Darlington]

"The Cisco CSR 1000V provides selected Cisco IOS XE features on a virtualization platform."

source 

http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/CSR1000V:Home

It's basically a port of the code used a hard router onto a virtualized platform. I use CSR 1000v in my lab at home and they do practically everything a physical router running similar code would do, with some limitations on features as per the release notes.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/routers/cloud-services-router-1000v-series/products-release-notes-list.html

Hope this helps. Please rate if it does.

[m1xed0s]

Thanks! I will read the liink

[Georg Pauwen]

Hello,

the 'universal' simply means that the image contains all fixed feature images in one image. You can access the required
functionality based on the license installed on the device. So basically you have one image containing all features, and you activate the features by selecting the appropriate license.

It does NOT mean that there is ONE image for all platforms. Every platform has its own universal image.

[m1xed0s]

Thanks! All I need is to make sure for example, I did a firmware upgrade on the lab CSR1000V successfully which shows the likely hood of successful firmware upgrade on the production psychical router.

[Richard Burts]

I would be very hesitant to assume that a successful firmware upgrade on a virtual router would assure that the corresponding firmware upgrade on a physical router would also be successful. Among other things the firmware upgrade on the physical router will deal with interface driver code very differently from what a virtual machine would need.

HTH

Rick

[m1xed0s]

I agree. Instead of getting CSR1000V for lab, I could get smaller router for lab to mimic the production but that would still have the same limitation for my scenario, right?

[Richard Burts]

I would agree that a physical router would probably be a better test than a virtual router. Depending on how careful you want to be about the lab correctly and accurately reflecting your production environment you might be concerned about whether one router can accurately predict behavior of 3 different hardware platforms mentioned in your original post.

Having made that point I will also acknowledge that for most of us there is a reasonableness test to consider as we develop a lab environment. Many of us can not afford to have in our lab one (or more) of every platform that may exist in the production network. So you need to decide where on that continuum your organization is.

HTH

Rick

[m1xed0s]

For the financial reason, I was checking the CSR...I will see how much savings if chose a smaller router that can run IOS-XE, if they donot like the virtual ones...