I was informed that Cisco no longer sells Softnet support. What should I
be asking for in order to open TAC cases directly (not via our Cisco Gold
Partner) as well as to be able to download new IOS versions?
Thanks,
Hank
___
cisco-nsp mailing list
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:28:28AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I was informed that Cisco no longer sells Softnet support. What should I
be asking for in order to open TAC cases directly (not via our Cisco Gold
Partner) as well as to be able to download new IOS versions?
Softnet is a
Hank,
I think you are referring to SmartNet...
Arie
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Hank Nussbacher
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 10:28
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Softnet replacement?
At 11:24 AM 11-01-09 +0100, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
Hank,
I think you are referring to SmartNet...
That provides RMA which we do not need. We want *only* TAC access and IOS
downloads. Softnet provided that option - which Cisco has abolished.
-Hank
Arie
-Original Message-
Hi Hank,
I was informed that Cisco no longer sells Softnet support. What should
I
be asking for in order to open TAC cases directly (not via our Cisco
Gold
Partner) as well as to be able to download new IOS versions?
We use Co-brand maintenance, which is purchased from a partner but direct
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 11:24 AM 11-01-09 +0100, Arie Vayner (avayner) wrote:
Hank,
I think you are referring to SmartNet...
That provides RMA which we do not need. We want *only* TAC access and
IOS downloads. Softnet provided that option - which Cisco has abolished.
We've set up some
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:41:59PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
That provides RMA which we do not need. We want *only* TAC access and IOS
downloads. Softnet provided that option - which Cisco has abolished.
Oh. Interesting. Softnet would have been what we've been asking Cisco
for for
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
That provides RMA which we do not need. We want *only* TAC access and
IOS downloads. Softnet provided that option - which Cisco has abolished.
In the past i've bought 'SASU' which is Software Application Support
plus Upgrades.
However on recent pricing it came out the
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Will Hargrave wrote:
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
That provides RMA which we do not need. We want *only* TAC access and
IOS downloads. Softnet provided that option - which Cisco has abolished.
In the past i've bought 'SASU' which is Software Application Support
plus
Vrf-lite is just a Cisco term for utilizing VRFs when no MPLS is
present. Any vendor who supports VRFs support VRF-lite.
In all honesty it's a stupid term as VRF technology isn't tied to MPLS
at all. Yes vrf is required for l3 vpns but so is mBGP and we don't
have mBGP-lite :)
Higham, Josh wrote:
Either I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, or this is incorrect.
The native VLAN identifier just dictates what frames are tagged, it
doesn't control whether they are sent. So if the native vlan is 999,
with a default config port is in vlan 1, if the port receives
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:19:54AM -0700, Brandon Bennett wrote:
In all honesty it's a stupid term as VRF technology isn't tied to MPLS
at all. Yes vrf is required for l3 vpns but so is mBGP and we don't
have mBGP-lite :)
Well, mBGP is not strictly required... you can do L3 VPNs
The term VRF-Lite comes from when Cisco started delivering VRF
capabilities across all Catalyst L3 platforms, even the low end.
Many vendors do support VRF on their high end routers and switches,
but few have comprehensive VRF support from the high end all the to
the low end.
MBGP is not
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:41:59PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
That provides RMA which we do not need. We want *only* TAC access and IOS
downloads. Softnet provided that option - which Cisco has abolished.
Oh. Interesting. Softnet would have been what we've been
Thanks all for the feedback. Turns out the software revision on the
switch (0.8.58) was part of a revision window that had dhcp relay OFF
by default. I upgraded to the latest revision, which had it enabled.
On 1/9/09, Jeremy L. Gaddis jer...@evilrouters.net wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Eric
Juniper supports it well. The EX series 1U switches are pretty decent
actually.
But, again... he might be able to get this done without VRFs...
Brad Hedlund (brhedlun) wrote:
The term VRF-Lite comes from when Cisco started delivering VRF
capabilities across all Catalyst L3 platforms, even the
On 1/11/09 12:58 PM, Derick Winkworth dwinkwo...@att.net wrote:
But, again... he might be able to get this done without VRFs...
Yes, possibly. At the expense of dynamic routing.
Brad Hedlund
bhedl...@cisco.com
http://www.internetworkexpert.org
___
More than likely we will go in the direction of adding an additional
layer 3 device off of the external interface of our firewall. We will
use this layer 3 device to make the decision as to which interface the
traffic should be forwarded onto.
We could probably accomplish this with a Procurve
You could also route out to IU via a DMZ interface on the firewall.
Depending on what services they're providing to you, you may be required
(by law in many cases) to encrypt the transmission of data to IU. This
would be the case if you were a medical institution transmitting data to
an
Speaking on VRF-Lite.
What is the easiest way to link two VRF's on two separate routers in layer 2
- so each VRF can see the arp and so on from the other?
...Skeeve
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Chris
That's great to hear Eric!
I ran into some DHCP issues when using MAC authentication over RADIUS
on a 5412zl this summer. In my case a simple software upgrade did the
trick as well!
- Chris
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:28:15 -0600
From: Eric Cables ecab...@gmail.com
Subject: Re:
On 1/11/09 3:40 PM, Skeeve Stevens ske...@skeeve.org wrote:
What is the easiest way to link two VRF's on two separate routers in layer 2
- so each VRF can see the arp and so on from the other?
802.1Q Tagging. Either using subinterfaces on routed ports, or SVI's on L2
trunking ports.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Justin Shore wrote:
There is a SmartNet option with software, TAC support, and no advanced
replacement in SP Base. Specifically you want SP-SW for your device. To give
you an idea of the price difference for a 7201 with no on-site support,
24x7x4 is $3226, 8x5xNBD is
Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Speaking on VRF-Lite.
What is the easiest way to link two VRF's on two separate routers in layer 2
- so each VRF can see the arp and so on from the other?
i think you've missed a critical bit of understanding here; VRF is a
layer 3 concept.
if you wanted to connect
I should of specified rfc2547 vpns.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 11, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Brad Hedlund (brhedlun) brhed...@cisco.com
wrote:
The term VRF-Lite comes from when Cisco started delivering VRF
capabilities across all Catalyst L3 platforms, even the low end.
Many vendors do support
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 11, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Brad Hedlund (brhedlun) brhed...@cisco.com
wrote:
The term VRF-Lite comes from when Cisco started delivering VRF
capabilities across all Catalyst L3 platforms, even the low end.
Exactly. It's cisco marketing speak. It's just another
I think Engel may have mis-read my email and thought I was on a trunk
port in which case what he wrote would have been correct. In my case
though I was on an access port. Most of that port's config had been
wiped clean leaving only switchport and mode access. I could avoid the
issue in the
Hey all,
I need to come up with a quick solution for a large scale temporary wireless
solution.
It is for some roving festivals and the request has been for 4000
connections. but I think I can talk them down.
What I am wondering is. How many simultaneous users can a 1252AG handle?
And is there
Hi Skeeve,
in the Past I implemented Wism / WLC in the Campus, I used 50 users for 1 AP
but I have seen a lot of intermittent problem and connectivity issue
occurred.
so, I got the advice from Cisco which adjust the AP only can handle up to
max 25-30, this then solving the connectivity issue.
--- On Mon, 12/1/09, Skeeve Stevens ske...@skeeve.org wrote:
From: Skeeve Stevens ske...@skeeve.org
Subject: [c-nsp] Max number of users on Aironet 1252AG
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Date: Monday, 12 January, 2009, 12:34 PM
Hey all,
I need to come up with a quick solution for a large
30 matches
Mail list logo
