John, you pays your money, you takes your chances. it could be worse. suppose Cisco took the Microsoft approach.
The first Windows NT was NT 3.1 ( to synch the name with the current desktop OS of Windows 3.1. But the next windows desktop release was Windows 3.11 while the next NT was 3.51 Then there was Windows 95, but NT 4.0 then came the service packs. try to keep those suckers straight! Now it is Windows 2K with various sub-names and Windows XP with the same problem. Do I buy the Professional, the Desktop, or the Fool on the Hill release? Hey, how about a contest - let's provide Cisco with some snappy names for their various IOS releases. Like IOS Yakkity Yak for the VoIP versions and IOS In the Money for the ATM versions ( bad joke ) Or maybe Cisco should take my advice - One IOS to forward them all One IOS to find them One IOS to summarize them all And in the routing tables bind them. think if that were true - what size flash and dram would you need? Back to work. Got a customer to call. ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Is anyone else concerned about the numbering scheme so far? :-) They > seem to just skip several major releases to try to get their numbering > system synchronized but it also has the subtle effect of making us think > they're progressing further than they really are. > > For example, I see today that 12.2(10) is out. What was the previous > release? 12.2(9)? Nope. 12.2(7) !! > > It's even worse in the T releases. They skipped from 12.2(4)T to > 12.2(8)T. This is nuts! > > I took a look at the open caveats for 12.2(10) and was quite surprised > at what I found. Keep in mind that they're only listing the severity 1 > and 2 caveats plus a few select severity 3 caveats. With my browser > window fully open, I had to hit 81 times to get through the > list! That's eighty one pages of known bugs, and only the worst of the > bunch, not a complete list. > > It scares me sometimes what I'm willing to put on our routers here at > work. On one of our main routers I'm running 12.2(3) but that's only > because it seems to be fairly stable in our environment and I'm afraid > to upgrade. We can't downgrade because I need a couple of the > features. Definitely a precarious situation. > > Okay, time to get some more coffee. I'm rambling. Perhaps I should > attempt to argue that IGRP is a path vector protocol. Or perhaps ponder > over tunneling token ring over encrypted HSRP tunnels. > > Regards, > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44283&t=44267 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
