Products at this level of complexity either need an internal team with extensive experience, or a consulting company that has that expertise. But on top of that, all important features need to be documented and formally confirmed by ones Cisco account team. That way if it doesn't work as promised you can negotiate a resolution. It's a lot of "extra" work, but if the financial risk is too great, you'll go through the exercise.
As Brett just wrote, it's doing ones due diligence, someone one does with every transaction. That's why you hire a house inspector despite the seller's claims. Frank -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 1:04 PM To: Tony Varriale Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] WARNING: Netflow Data Export & Hardware assisted NAT not supported on 76xx/65xx on the same interface Hi, On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:12:44AM -0500, Tony Varriale wrote: > Then hire someone that knows what they are doing. Am I the only one to find that sort of remark a bit nasty? While not sporting any nice certificates, I consider myself to be somewhat experienced with Cisco platforms, and Cisco architecture - and if a prospective customer would have asked me "will NAT and netflow work together?" I would have checked the documentation, would not have found anything about that conflict either, and would have said "no problem there". After all, on other Cisco platforms netflow is used as well to help NAT (netflow feature-acceleration), and of course, the corresponding flow records get exported properly afterwards. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected] fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected] _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
