Hi,
you can use the Cisco IOS Software Checker
http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/selectIOSVersion.x
I think this is exactly what you are looking for.
Used it a couple of times, no complains until now.
Cheers,
Chris
On 07.02.2012 05:40, CiscoNSP_list CiscoNSP_list wrote:
Hi Guys,
Is
Hey guys,
Has anyone out there come across a condition where switch ports secured with
802.1x have issues with clients/supplicants that go into hibernate / sleep
mode?
We have some clients that are hibernating and as a result the switch is
filling the logs with failed 802.1x authorization
On 07/02/12 11:54, Aaron Riemer wrote:
Hey guys,
Has anyone out there come across a condition where switch ports secured with
802.1x have issues with clients/supplicants that go into hibernate / sleep
mode?
Well, such a machine will stop authenticating.
We have some clients that are
Can you disable WOL on the clients? Seems like if it was disabled in the
BIOS, the NIC would have no reason to bring up a link when
off/sleeping/hibernating.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Aaron
Thanks Chuck will look into that!
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Church [mailto:chuckchu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012 9:27 PM
To: 'Aaron Riemer'; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] 802.1x - clients that go to sleep
Can you disable WOL on the clients? Seems
Hi Phil,
Thanks for your response.
Essentially I don't want to see a bunch of spurious dot1x failures in my log
as it makes life hard when you are trying to troubleshoot real dot1x failed
authentication attempts. I would prefer that the switch didn't send the
authorization attempts and rather be
On 07/02/12 13:29, Aaron Riemer wrote:
Hi Phil,
Thanks for your response.
Essentially I don't want to see a bunch of spurious dot1x failures in my log
as it makes life hard when you are trying to troubleshoot real dot1x failed
authentication attempts. I would prefer that the switch didn't send
On 07/02/12 13:26, Chuck Church wrote:
Can you disable WOL on the clients? Seems like if it was disabled in the
BIOS, the NIC would have no reason to bring up a link when
off/sleeping/hibernating.
One other option that springs to mind is increasing:
dot1x timeout quiet-period
...or one of
Quick reality check...
Is the difference in the E-series chassis only in available power? Has nothing
to do
with backplane bandwidth?
Jeff
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
The back-plane throughput capability is higher in the E chassis.
It doesn't really matter since higher BW cards (2T compatible) are only
supported in the E chassis
But the non-E is theoretically capable of much higher speed than the 40G cards
supported.
IIRC the E chassis is theoretically
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Jeff Kell wrote:
Quick reality check...
Is the difference in the E-series chassis only in available power? Has nothing
to do
with backplane bandwidth?
The non-E chassis only has 40G per slot to the backplane, where the E
chassis has 80G per slot. IIRC the Sup2T and
On 07/02/12 15:30, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Jeff Kell wrote:
Quick reality check...
Is the difference in the E-series chassis only in available power? Has
nothing to do
with backplane bandwidth?
The non-E chassis only has 40G per slot to the backplane, where the E
Also the 6513E backplane provides 80Gb (dual fabric channels) for each slot
whereas the 6513 is limited to 40Gb in slots 1-8.
From: Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 12:19 PM
Subject: Re:
We recently found out from Cisco that the plain-old 6509 is not smartnet-able
anymore. Might be something you want to consider.
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Bill Wade
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012
On 7 Feb 2012, at 15:29, Mack McBride mack.mcbr...@viawest.com wrote:
But the non-E is theoretically capable of much higher speed than the 40G
cards supported.
IIRC the E chassis is theoretically capable of about double the BW provided
by the Sup2T.
My take is that Cisco is intentionally
On 2/7/2012 3:00 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Anyway, I don't really have an issue with this - the E chassis has been sold
more or
less exclusively since 2005 or so, so any remaining in deployment will be
well past
their accounting write off time.
Apparently Cisco support of the non-E chassis
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 2/7/2012 3:00 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Anyway, I don't really have an issue with this - the E chassis has been sold
more or
less exclusively since 2005 or so, so any remaining in deployment will be well
past
their accounting write off time.
Also non-E 3-slot chassis can't host 67xx modules.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Bill Wade billwad...@yahoo.com wrote:
Also the 6513E backplane provides 80Gb (dual fabric channels) for each slot
whereas the 6513 is limited to 40Gb in slots 1-8.
From:
[Apologies if you've already seen this announcement in other forums.]
We've just posted the 2011 Worldwide Infrastructure Security Report for
download at this URL:
http://www.arbornetworks.com/report
This year's WWISR contains responses and data from 114 network operators in all
major
19 matches
Mail list logo
