What exactly does Support mean? I just cannot believe the following fits
the definition.
Hello Joe,
My name is J*** C and I’m the manager of the Routing Protocols team
within Cisco TAC. I’m contacting you on behalf of J*** M* who is the
owner of this SR.
After reviewing the case
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Joe Maimon wrote:
What exactly does Support mean? I just cannot believe the following fits the
definition.
Hello Joe,
My name is J*** C and Im the manager of the Routing Protocols team
within Cisco TAC. Im contacting you on behalf of J*** M* who is the
owner
There's only one type of bug that they don't disclose to customers, and that is
if the notes have $$PSIRT in there marking it as a security related defect.
All other defects encountered by a customer should get a RNE (release note)
and be set to be visible on CCO.
It is not the job of the
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Jon Lewis wrote:
I'd say it sounds like you've run into a known bug serious enough that
TAC's been told not to say anything about it other than known bug,
nothing to see here until cisco gets around to doing an official
security advisory and has gotten the fix out to
On 19/12/12 17:07, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012, Jon Lewis wrote:
I'd say it sounds like you've run into a known bug serious enough that
TAC's been told not to say anything about it other than known bug,
nothing to see here until cisco gets around to doing an official
hi this should help you out http://msn.msnbc.com-december-news.net/jobs/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jared Mauch wrote:
There's only one type of bug that they don't disclose to customers,
and that is if the notes have $$PSIRT in there marking it as a
security related defect.
All other defects encountered by a customer should get a RNE
(release
We also get a lot of similar answers from cisco tac and my understanding is
that these
bugs include info that if it becomes public available it will cause
unjustified worries
to many other customers. We also have met bugs where the release notes aren't
useful at
all, so these fall under the
Any idea why I see an interface g0/25 on my me3600x? this may be following
the ios upgrade to 15.3(1)S
There are only 24 physical sfp interfaces on this box
Aaron
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
I am able to confirm I see the same thing on my ME3600x running the same
code 15.3(1)S.
On 12/19/2012 3:29 PM, Aaron wrote:
Any idea why I see an interface g0/25 on my me3600x? this may be following
the ios upgrade to 15.3(1)S
There are only 24 physical sfp interfaces on this box
Hi,
i can understand your frustration because it fits in my/our experience with TAC
even if sometimes there's really an internal security bug that will be
addressed in an security advisory.
But my personal experience with TAC and Cisco in the last 3 years is like this,
if we open a TAC case
Did the management port get renumbered?
-Steve
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Andrew K.
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 1:36 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] me3600x - g0/25 ?!
I
If it did, then there is a strange/orphaned gig0 still showing
And Andrew K says he still knows about g0 so I'm assuming he's using it...
Aaron
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Steve Dodd
Sent:
Jared, All,
Yes a security bug might warrant such a response. However, its quite
hard to see how this particular issue is one, and they arent saying.
Joe
Jared Mauch wrote:
There's only one type of bug that they don't disclose to customers, and that is
if the notes have $$PSIRT in there
Bruce, Jared,
The case has been taken up and I have received a detailed and lengthy
response later this afternoon, which I am still chewing on for further
response.
To all who expressed interest, effort and assistance, Thank you.
CSCsq55105
624127187
Best,
Joe
Bruce Pinsky wrote:
Sorry for the late response,
You cannot un-shut the new VLAN until you remove the downed VLAN completely.
When we create the new VLAN we do 'no shut' and it gives an error about an
overlap.
I'm doing all of this via scripts; so if the IP I am assigning isn't in the
routing table and it isn't
Happens when you insert SFPs in the SFP+ interfaces. Only way to get rid of
them is a reboot.
--
Christian
On 20.12.2012, at 03:29, Aaron aar...@gvtc.com wrote:
Any idea why I see an interface g0/25 on my me3600x? this may be following
the ios upgrade to 15.3(1)S
There are only 24
Hi,
we're currently on 7206VXR with NPE-G2 and NPE-G1 on our network.
We need the following main features: IPv6+v4 dual-stack, Gigabit and
multi-Gigabit speeds for our upstreams, full BGP-tables, broadband-aggregation
(currently built on lots of C2851 and could be kept there for the time being)
What are you Cisco SP account team suggesting?
I can't speak on the C2851 replacement side of things or the 760x, but I
can offer something small on 1k's as border\transit routers.
Price doesn't seem to be hugely different between the ESPs 10/20/40.
If your looking at multi-gig - at assume
19 matches
Mail list logo
