On 27/06/2012 23:29, chip wrote: > Not being able to insert rpl policy without having to re-do the whole > policy. Yes, I know you can edit it with the built-in nano, emacs, or > vi editors, but that's kinda difficult to script, eh? Also, you must > have your TERM evironment var set to vt100, if it's set to xterm it > won't work. And yes I know you can upload it from a file, but again, > it's the whole thing.
This is annoying in minor sort of way. But rpl is so full of win all around that I'm happy to overlook this. > Console port (for at least the RSP440's) requires 8n2 setting, again, > no big deal, but a bit annoying having to change stuff around. Bizarre decision. I cannot understand how or why anyone would use 8N2. Or indeed implement rs232 as a console mechanism these days. We live in an ethernet world, even for oob (please see previous rants about CMP support). > GLC-T SFP's aren't supported, SFP-GE-T's are, this seemed to change > from 4.2.0 to 4.2.1, not the support, but the enforcement of it. Use programmable third party transceivers instead. There is no justification for cisco not supporting newer GLC-* transceivers, and there is no justification for Cisco to charge their outrageous prices for commodity third party hardware. And just in case someone starts going on about compatibility, GLC-* refers to a family of SFP transceivers which has encompassed many manufacturers and even more hardware revisions since they were introduced 15 years ago. > No RIP-NG support That is a feature, imho. > I really wish there was a "commit and quit" meh. not a biggie. > Using ACLs to restrict telnet/ssh access gets strange if you use > layer-4 port definitions in your acl, just stick to source prefix. you can use prefix sets for this, no? Nick _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
