The specific example I referenced was 12.4. I no longer have the records available to show the exact train/revision. Most recently I had problems on an 1800 with 12.4.18a (also tried 12.4.3, 12.4.19. 12.4.18a was TAC's recommendation).
Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Reimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 4:56 PM > To: Michael Malitsky; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [c-nsp] 2801 - can it handle this? > > What version of code was the router running. There was a > major rewrite of > the IPS code in 12.3(11)T. If you were running anything prior to that > performance was lacking. > > Fred Reimer, CISSP, CCNP, CQS-VPN, CQS-ISS > Senior Network Engineer > Coleman Technologies, Inc. > 954-298-1697 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Malitsky > > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 1:29 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 2801 - can it handle this? > > > > > Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 00:36:01 -0500 > > > From: "Dan Letkeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: [c-nsp] 2801 - can it handle this? > > > To: [email protected] > > > Message-ID: > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I have a 2801 router with the firewall IOS. I have a 10mbit > > > connection to the internet. There will be anywhere from 100-300 > > users > > > using this router for browsing the internet at one time. > > > > > > I will be running ips and some security acl's. No voip, > maybe one or > > > two video connections. > > > > > > Will this router be able to handle this amount of connections? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Dan. > > > > > > > > > The specs from Cisco say no problem, but I've run into a number of > > issues trying to use ISRs (2800 and 1800 series) for > multiple purposes > > simultaneously (router, firewall, etc). The closest case I > had to your > > scenario was trying to use 2 2811s as a failover/redundant firewall > > with > > NAT and IPS. We hardly had traffic reaching 10Mb, but the > setup kept > > crashing - the reason was never fully tracked down, TAC was > taking too > > long. Replaced with a pair of ASAs, not a single hiccup since. > > Similar experiences elsewhere - I don't see these platforms > as viable > > for firewall/IPS purposes unless the traffic levels are very low. I > > don't know if this is due to bugs or performance limitations. > > For similar money, the PIX or ASA appliances are far more stable and > > can > > handle much higher loads. > > > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
