There is no difference between the IOS used in a 2500 & a 3000.  You are
right...  all the 2500's in my lab say 3000 IGS IOS (with 11.2) & all the
3000's say 2500 IOS (with 11.3 or better).  These routers are the best kept
secret for home laber's...

Phil


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Craig Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: difference between 3000 and 2500 system image files


>
> Thats normal, back then (11.0) IGS/3000/2500 was all the same
> software.  Load up 11.2 or 11.3 or later on it, and it will show "2500
> Software" no problem.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Craig Jensen wrote:
>
> > Why would on a 2500 router show ver display
> >
> > IOS (tm) 3000 Software (IGS-INR-L), Version 11.0(13)
> >
> > when the image file is
> >
> > System image file is "flash:ios2500-ip-ipx-ibm-110-13
> >
> >
> > We bought many of these routers for labs from a large corporation.  I
doubt
> > they would put an image of a older router on these 2500's and then roll
them
> > out to production.
> >
> > Sh ver on a router running 11.2 displays
> >
> > IOS (tm) 2500 Software (C2500-I-L), Version 11.2(2),
> >
> > with the image file
> >
> > System image file is "flash:c2500-i-l.112-2", booted via flash
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Brian Feeny, CCNP, CCDP       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Network Administrator
> ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881)
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to