Re: [c-nsp] Add Path IOS
On 2012-03-19 21:41, Nick Hilliard wrote: It's already available on SR (i.e. 7200 / 7600). Good to know, I should consider upgrading then. What about SX and 15.x train? Any chance that it will be available soon? Incidentally if you're starting a new thread, please start a new thread and don't do it by hitting reply to an existing thread. Otherwise your posting will get lost. Oh, yeah you are right - mail is so damn complicated. -- Christian ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IP helper-address source from loopback?
Jay, Take a look here... I think this should do the trick. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipaddr/configuration/guide/iad_dhcps ervidlink_mcp.html#wp1058967 Arie -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 07:37 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] IP helper-address source from loopback? We have a setup where an external global DHCP server is used to assign pools within a few VRFs on 7206VXR, IOS 12.4. Interface configuration looks like this: interface Port-channel1.3004 description Test encapsulation dot1Q 3004 ip vrf forwarding net21 ip address 10.21.97.126 255.255.255.192 ip helper-address global w.x.y.z We're using option 82 to communicate the vrf subnet information and it all works well. The problem that I'm trying to solve is to use a loopback as the global source interface from which the DHCP requests originate. With the above configuration the router uses the closest egress interface to the DHCP server. This is quite usable but I'd prefer it originate on a loopback for cleanliness and redundancy. IOS has tweaks to manipulate the source address of telnet, RADIUS, ftp, tftp, rcmd, and the like but I don't see an obvious way to specify the source of the DHCP relay packets. I'm considering attempting a local route-map as a possible solution but that seems like a pretty big hammer for a small tweak if it works at all. Any suggestions from the assorted Cisco wizards? -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Firewall/IPS Load Balancing
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 00:50, Murphy, William william.mur...@uth.tmc.edu wrote: I thought I would poll the list to solicit recommendations on how to do firewall/IPS load balancing. I am considering a traffic distribution switch from GigaMon but I am curious what other products might be out there, or perhaps even features in Cisco 6500 product that would achieve the same result. I am not interested in paying for full blown ADC/SLB boxes (ACE or whatever) with more features than I need, and the GigaMon approach seems like it fits that bill. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Hi, I think you are a bit confused: GigaMon does not produce/sell load balancing switches. What they do sniffing equipment that has the possibility to be very granular at what you want to capture and to audit this (like before receibing traffic you have to authenticate to the device). If you want firewall high availability, the simplest solution is to buy two firewalls and run them in A/A or A/P configuration. ACE or another SLB solution will balance incoming traffic to a pool of servers based on some criteria that you can usually choose from. I think you need to better describe what are your needs and what you want to accomplish. HTH, Eugeniu ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Firewall/IPS Load Balancing
On 03/20/2012 09:31 AM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: I think you are a bit confused: GigaMon does not produce/sell load balancing switches. What they do sniffing equipment that has the Maybe he means this? http://www.gigamon.com/g-secure-0216 I think you need to better describe what are your needs and what you want to accomplish. Very much so; firewall load balancing is way too generic a term to give useful advice on. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Add Path IOS
On 20/03/2012 06:46, Christian Meutes wrote: Good to know, I should consider upgrading then. What about SX and 15.x train? Any chance that it will be available soon? You'll have to ask your SE about this. Note that this is ibgp add-path support only. There is no support for ebgp add-path on any cisco platform at the moment. Nick ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] About Cisco ASR 1006 Router performance
Dear honorable member: Wishes all are fine. i need suggestion from you about CISCO ASR 1006 router performance. i want to buy this router for IP Transit provider where i received all global routes . it would be nice please put your valued suggestion about this issue. thanks jahangir ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] About Cisco ASR 1006 Router performance
Stable product. Not sure about full internet feed but I am using 7609 for the same purpose it is perfectly running. ASR is the high end series should work. -FJ On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Md. Jahangir Hossain jrjahan...@yahoo.comwrote: Dear honorable member: Wishes all are fine. i need suggestion from you about CISCO ASR 1006 router performance. i want to buy this router for IP Transit provider where i received all global routes . it would be nice please put your valued suggestion about this issue. thanks jahangir ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] About Cisco ASR 1006 Router performance
On 20/03/2012 11:19, Md. Jahangir Hossain wrote: i need suggestion from you about CISCO ASR 1006 router performance. i want to buy this router for IP Transit provider where i received all global routes . ASR1k performance depends completely on the ESP card used. ESP cards come with a number (e.g. ESP5 / ESP10 / ESP20, etc). This number tells you how much traffic the router can handle. Specifically, the ASR1k operates using centralised forwarding, and the number is a measure of how much traffic can leave the central forwarding engine. If you're handling just unicast traffic, this will be the same as the ingress traffic. If you're planning on multicast, outbound multicast traffic counts towards this total. Nick ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] About Cisco ASR 1006 Router performance
Hi, On 2012-03-20 13:19, Md. Jahangir Hossain wrote: i need suggestion from you about CISCO ASR 1006 router performance. i want to buy this router for IP Transit provider where i received all global routes . it would be nice please put your valued suggestion about this issue. regarding PE and RR scalability the ASR1k is afaik the best product from Cisco (~4M routes FIB, ~25M routes RIB/RR, 8k BGP-Sessions). -- Christian ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] PPPOE pass through Cisco Routers
As an environment as Wireless ISP, we are trying to deliver PPPOE connections to our clients, in a routed network. So, our first problem is to pass through PPPoE protocol over one or several cisco routers. Could somebody help us with this task? Thanks very much in advance. Gracias y saludos, Cipriano Montero ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] PPPOE pass through Cisco Routers
Hi, You most likely need to look into Layer 2 VPN options... Either over MPLS (EoMPLS/ATOM/VPLS) or over IP using L2TPv3. Be careful with MTU... Arie -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Cipriano Montero, Infostock Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 14:07 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Cc: Juan Luis Hoyo Herbello Subject: [c-nsp] PPPOE pass through Cisco Routers As an environment as Wireless ISP, we are trying to deliver PPPOE connections to our clients, in a routed network. So, our first problem is to pass through PPPoE protocol over one or several cisco routers. Could somebody help us with this task? Thanks very much in advance. Gracias y saludos, Cipriano Montero ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] PPPOE pass through Cisco Routers
On 03/20/2012 05:07 AM, Cipriano Montero, Infostock wrote: As an environment as Wireless ISP, we are trying to deliver PPPOE connections to our clients, in a routed network. So, our first problem is to pass through PPPoE protocol over one or several cisco routers. Could somebody help us with this task? This isn't the cisco answer you are looking for, however PPPoE is a layer 2 protocol, and it (normally) requires that your clients are in the same broadcast domain as your PPPoE termination device (eg: plugged into the same switch for example). So, in a routed network, there won't normally be a layer 2 path here since you've got vlan's and / or routers connecting your network segments. One choice could be to use a PPPoE relay agent. This would have a router listen on some interface for PPPoE frames and then relay them to another interface where your PPPoE server is residing. This works for 1 hop when you have clients on one interface and the server is on another, but I don't think you want to try extending it beyond 1 hop. Another choice - and the one I myself use - is to create a layer 2 vpn. I know there are cisco mpls solutions for this which someone else can comment on. I happen to use an opensource package called OpenVPN and it's stable and reliable. Effectively you'd have two boxes - one out in your network facing your wireless customers, and then another near your PPPoE server, and there would be a tunnel built on UDP that the traffic would pass thru. MTU isn't really a problem although if you have jumbo frame support internally it would reduce your packet fragmentation. Good luck. Mike- ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Firewall/IPS Load Balancing
Thanks for your feedback, but I don't think I am confused. GigaMon produces a G-Secure-0216 device which allows you to take a 10G link and split the flows/conversations across up to 8 1G links. They basically call it a security device load balancer. The device operates at close to line rate and can allocate the flows using mac-address, IP address. and even layer-4 ports (user configurable). What I am trying to achieve is independence from vendor proprietary clustering, load sharing approaches and have something that is more linearly scalable simply by adding another parallel device into the path. I won't name names but certain security vendors don't do A/A very well... Bill -Original Message- From: Eugeniu Patrascu [mailto:eu...@imacandi.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 4:32 AM To: Murphy, William Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Firewall/IPS Load Balancing On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 00:50, Murphy, William william.mur...@uth.tmc.edu wrote: I thought I would poll the list to solicit recommendations on how to do firewall/IPS load balancing. I am considering a traffic distribution switch from GigaMon but I am curious what other products might be out there, or perhaps even features in Cisco 6500 product that would achieve the same result. I am not interested in paying for full blown ADC/SLB boxes (ACE or whatever) with more features than I need, and the GigaMon approach seems like it fits that bill. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Hi, I think you are a bit confused: GigaMon does not produce/sell load balancing switches. What they do sniffing equipment that has the possibility to be very granular at what you want to capture and to audit this (like before receibing traffic you have to authenticate to the device). If you want firewall high availability, the simplest solution is to buy two firewalls and run them in A/A or A/P configuration. ACE or another SLB solution will balance incoming traffic to a pool of servers based on some criteria that you can usually choose from. I think you need to better describe what are your needs and what you want to accomplish. HTH, Eugeniu ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IP helper-address source from loopback?
On 3/19/12 11:56 PM, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote: Jay, Take a look here... I think this should do the trick. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipaddr/configuration/guide/iad_dhcps ervidlink_mcp.html#wp1058967 Arie It indeed does! It's only in the SE train, so now I need to analyze how much I want this and what might break... -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] PPPOE pass through Cisco Routers
Congruent with your last suggestion, what about using L2TPv3 in a LAC/LNS sort of configuration? It's very easy to setup if you don't already have an MPLS enabled network deployed. -Vinny -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:28 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] PPPOE pass through Cisco Routers On 03/20/2012 05:07 AM, Cipriano Montero, Infostock wrote: As an environment as Wireless ISP, we are trying to deliver PPPOE connections to our clients, in a routed network. So, our first problem is to pass through PPPoE protocol over one or several cisco routers. Could somebody help us with this task? This isn't the cisco answer you are looking for, however PPPoE is a layer 2 protocol, and it (normally) requires that your clients are in the same broadcast domain as your PPPoE termination device (eg: plugged into the same switch for example). So, in a routed network, there won't normally be a layer 2 path here since you've got vlan's and / or routers connecting your network segments. One choice could be to use a PPPoE relay agent. This would have a router listen on some interface for PPPoE frames and then relay them to another interface where your PPPoE server is residing. This works for 1 hop when you have clients on one interface and the server is on another, but I don't think you want to try extending it beyond 1 hop. Another choice - and the one I myself use - is to create a layer 2 vpn. I know there are cisco mpls solutions for this which someone else can comment on. I happen to use an opensource package called OpenVPN and it's stable and reliable. Effectively you'd have two boxes - one out in your network facing your wireless customers, and then another near your PPPoE server, and there would be a tunnel built on UDP that the traffic would pass thru. MTU isn't really a problem although if you have jumbo frame support internally it would reduce your packet fragmentation. Good luck. Mike- ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Cisco ASA IPSec VPN Problem
Hello, We have the following problem with IPSec Site-to-Site VPN between Cisco ASA. The VPN establishes (IKE and IPSec phases are passed), but on my end I have only TX traffic, no RX. We've checked NAT (Exempt), ACL, routing. We've recreated the VPN from scratch. But, without success. And this problem is only with specific subnet: when we add another subnet in VPN config, it works. Do you know what else we have to check? Thanks, Piotr ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ASA IPSec VPN Problem
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, Covalciuc Piotr wrote: We have the following problem with IPSec Site-to-Site VPN between Cisco ASA. The VPN establishes (IKE and IPSec phases are passed), but on my end I have only TX traffic, no RX. Who controls the other end? So you're sending traffic via the VPN, but not receiving any? And this problem is only with specific subnet: when we add another subnet in VPN config, it works. Can you elaborate on what you mean by add another subnet? Do you know what else we have to check? Probably the config at the other end...the one that's receiving your traffic but not sending any back. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] N7k CoPP versus rate-limiters
Hi Phil, There are certain exceptions for packets being forwarded which are not handled by CoPP, these are covered by the HW Rate Limiters. Hardware rate-limiters protect the supervisor CPU from excessive inbound traffic. The traffic rate allowed by the hardware rate-limiters is configured globally and applied to each individual I/O module. The resulting allowed rate depends on the number of I/O modules in the system. CoPP provides more granular supervisor CPU protection by utilizing the modular quality-of-service CLI (MQC). Note that CoPP is applied per-linecard, so each module is allowed to transmit the configured rate. There are 3 templates you can use for CoPP, lenient, moderate and strict. The documentation describes them and their values in detail. You can apply one or the other with the 'copp profile' command. You can read more in detail about Configuring Rate Limits on the following link: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/sw/6_x/nx-os/security/configuration/guide/b_Cisco_Nexus_7000_NX-OS_Security_Configuration_Guide__Release_6.x_chapter_011010.html Below you can find the documentation for CoPP: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/sw/6_x/nx-os/security/configuration/guide/b_Cisco_Nexus_7000_NX-OS_Security_Configuration_Guide__Release_6.x_chapter_011001.html Best regards, Andras On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: All, We've just taken delivery of our first pair of N7k (and so far I'm impressed). I'm playing with porting our standard 6500 config to an equivalent N7k config, and I'm a bit puzzled by the interaction of CoPP and the hardware rate-limiters. On 6500/Sup720 these two features have well documented limitations and interaction - specifically HW rate-limiters pre-empt CoPP. I can't seem to find detailed information on how that works in the N7k. In general, what should I be using, for what? This is NX-OS 6, with M1 series linecards doing routing (MPLS). ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] 2960S IOS
Hi Guys, Have a pair of new 2960S's that are running 12.2(55)SE3 - Just after a recommendation on whether to upgrade to 12.2.58-SE2 or go to 15.0.1-SE2 ? Cheers. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] 2960S IOS
Hi John, I just upgrade our branch fleet of 2960s' to 15.0.1-SE2 if that helps. Thanks Simon - No issues as yet I assume? ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] 2960S IOS
12.2.58 is not going anywhere, we're halfway through upgrading to 15.0 (first versions had some show stoppers but latest version okay..so far! ;) ) alan ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Filtering Routes with Private AS Numbers in the AS Path
Hi, For filtering private as numbers (64512-65535) using an as-path access-list there are a few options I have seen: 1). All in one line ip as-path access-list 66 permit _(6451[2-9]|645[2-9][0-9]|64[6-9][0-9][0-9]|65[0-4][0-9][0-9]|655[0-2][0-9]|6553[0-5])_ 2). The above modified hopefully to be better in terms or regexp processing but perhaps not readability ip as-path access-list 66 permit _6(4(5(1[2-9]|[2-9][0-9])|[6-9][0-9][0-9])|5([0-4][0-9][0-9]|5([0-2][0-9]|3[0-5])))_ 3). Separate lines ip as-path access-list 66 permit _6451[2-9]_ ip as-path access-list 66 permit _645[2-9][0-9]_ ip as-path access-list 66 permit _64[6-9][0-9][0-9]_ ip as-path access-list 66 permit _65[0-4][0-9][0-9]_ ip as-path access-list 66 permit _655[0-2][0-9]_ ip as-path access-list 66 permit _6553[0-5]_ I would appreciate any feedback as to which is the least CPU intensive and if there is a better way to optimise 2 above. Thanks Ivan ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] 2960S IOS
Hi John, I just upgrade our branch fleet of 2960s' to 15.0.1-SE2 if that helps. Cheers, Simon. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of John Elliot Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 9:13 AM To: cisco-nsp Subject: [c-nsp] 2960S IOS Hi Guys, Have a pair of new 2960S's that are running 12.2(55)SE3 - Just after a recommendation on whether to upgrade to 12.2.58-SE2 or go to 15.0.1-SE2 ? Cheers. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ RACQ gets more than 9 out of 10 cars going again – quick smart. That’s Australia’s highest success rate! Be part of Queensland’s largest club. Visit racq.com/roadsiderescue Please Note: If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email as its use is prohibited. RACQ does not warrant or represent that this email is free from viruses or defects. If you do not wish to receive any further commercial electronic messages from RACQ please e-mail unsubscr...@racq.com.au or contact RACQ on 13 19 05. Please Note: If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email as its use is prohibited. RACQ does not warrant or represent that this email is free from viruses or defects. If you do not wish to receive any further commercial electronic messages from RACQ please e-mail unsubscr...@racq.com.au or contact RACQ on 13 19 05. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] 2960S IOS
Not certain if anyone is looking into smart install or vstack but when you go to 15 train you get a few nicer features which is one of the reasons we have gone into the 15 train where we can. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Thomason, Simon Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 9:16 AM To: 'John Elliot'; cisco-nsp Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 2960S IOS Hi John, I just upgrade our branch fleet of 2960s' to 15.0.1-SE2 if that helps. Cheers, Simon. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of John Elliot Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 9:13 AM To: cisco-nsp Subject: [c-nsp] 2960S IOS Hi Guys, Have a pair of new 2960S's that are running 12.2(55)SE3 - Just after a recommendation on whether to upgrade to 12.2.58-SE2 or go to 15.0.1-SE2 ? Cheers. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ RACQ gets more than 9 out of 10 cars going again – quick smart. That’s Australia’s highest success rate! Be part of Queensland’s largest club. Visit racq.com/roadsiderescue Please Note: If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email as its use is prohibited. RACQ does not warrant or represent that this email is free from viruses or defects. If you do not wish to receive any further commercial electronic messages from RACQ please e-mail unsubscr...@racq.com.au or contact RACQ on 13 19 05. Please Note: If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email as its use is prohibited. RACQ does not warrant or represent that this email is free from viruses or defects. If you do not wish to receive any further commercial electronic messages from RACQ please e-mail unsubscr...@racq.com.au or contact RACQ on 13 19 05. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ RACQ gets more than 9 out of 10 cars going again – quick smart. That’s Australia’s highest success rate! Be part of Queensland’s largest club. Visit racq.com/roadsiderescue Please Note: If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email as its use is prohibited. RACQ does not warrant or represent that this email is free from viruses or defects. If you do not wish to receive any further commercial electronic messages from RACQ please e-mail unsubscr...@racq.com.au or contact RACQ on 13 19 05. Please Note: If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email as its use is prohibited. RACQ does not warrant or represent that this email is free from viruses or defects. If you do not wish to receive any further commercial electronic messages from RACQ please e-mail unsubscr...@racq.com.au or contact RACQ on 13 19 05. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] 2960S IOS
John, we're using 15.0.1-SE2 (and 15.0.1-SE1) on aproximately 20 2960S's for a while and we have no problem so far. Regards, Jiri Dne 21.3.2012 0:13, John Elliot napsal(a): Hi Guys, Have a pair of new 2960S's that are running 12.2(55)SE3 - Just after a recommendation on whether to upgrade to 12.2.58-SE2 or go to 15.0.1-SE2 ? Cheers. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -- Jiri Prochazka network administrator (AS39392) SuperNetwork s.r.o. m: +420 777 87 37 67 w: http://www.superhosting.cz e: jiri.procha...@superhosting.cz ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] 2960S IOS
John, we're using 15.0.1-SE2 (and 15.0.1-SE1) on aproximately 20 2960S's for a while and we have no problem so far. Thanks to all who responded - have upgraded to 15.0(1)SE2...fingers crossed we encounter no issues :) ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
