RE: Pinouts for t1 crossover [7:19028]
1 4 2 5 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 2:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pinouts for t1 crossover [7:19028] I am trying to find out what the pinout is for a t1 crossover cable ? (CSU/DSU back to back) Jim Phillipo, CCNP, CCDP Sr. Internetworking Engineer W: 401.456.1821 F: 401.456.0599 M: 781.983.0316 90 Royal Little Drive, Providence, RI 02904 www.guardent.com _ G U A R D E N T Security | Privacy | Data Protection Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=19041&t=19028 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Privilege Level command driving me nuts!! [7:19158]
You can reset a command to its normal priv level using the format privilege exec reset put_the_entire_command_here Configuring privilege levels for commands on a router can be very frustrating. It also doesn't scale well in a medium to large network. The best production method I have found is to use TACACS. You can assign all users privilege level 15 and allow or deny commands at the user or group level. In my testing (it has been 9 months or so, this may have changed), the user must be at privilege level 15 in order to receive valid output from the show running-configuration command. It will return a blank configuration if the user is not at privilege level 15. Jeff. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cisco Nuts Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Privilege Level command driving me nuts!! [7:19158] Hi,I am trying to configure privilege exec level commands on my router but am going nuts at the output of these commands:Basically, here is what I have configured:#enable secret level 3 cisco! #privilege exec level 3 ping#privilege exec level 3 traceroute#privilege exec level 3 show ip route#privilege exec level 3 show startup-configuration#privilege exex level 3 show running-configuration!# When I do a log in using enable secret level 3, I can get the output of the #sh star command but not of the #sh ru command?Also, when I do a sh ru on the router using regular privilege level(15), I see 2 additional commands automatically configured for me:#privilege exec level 1 show#privilege exec level 1 show ip It will NOT let me remove these 2 commands nor will it let me change this to privilege level 3.Nor will it let me remove any individual commands!!What's going on? Any ideas? Thank you for your help.Kind regards.Nuts!! Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=19160&t=19158 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cisco VPN Solutions [7:20468]
They also released a Linux version of the client about a month ago. I haven't seen any problems with it yet. Very similar to the Windows client except everything is command line based (what you would expect). Jeff. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tim O'Brien Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cisco VPN Solutions [7:20468] The VPN client FULLY supports Windows 2000 as well as Windows ME, 98, NT, and 95. The unified client is tons better than the old client that Cisco had out. The new Unified client fully supports end user termination into the VPN Concentrators (3000 currently, 5000 series soon) and the PIX 6.0 and up code. The termination to IOS is slated for later this year, I hear. Tim - Original Message - From: "Andras Bellak" To: Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:15 AM Subject: RE: Cisco VPN Solutions [7:20468] One thing to be aware of - the VPN client doesn't (at least didn't last time I looked) support Windows 2000. It also has (once again, possibly should be "had") big issues with some ISPs, especially aol and netzero. I have to agree with the other folks, the concentrator (we have 3 vpn-3030 systems deployed around the world) is rock solid - I've only ever had one hang. The cisco VPN hardware solution is a great fit for home offices connecting to the concetrator, and the 806 router also works very well. I've used the client to pix, and while it works fine, it's a real p.i.t.a. Andras -Original Message- From: Neil Borne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 6:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cisco VPN Solutions [7:20468] The better, but more costly choice is the concentrator, you have a lot less issues to worry about than w/ IOS.Either pay now or pay for it later P. Neil Borne, CCDA,CCNP and C-voice Systems Integrator III >From: "Hyde, Lori" >Reply-To: "Hyde, Lori" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Cisco VPN Solutions [7:20468] >Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 08:42:52 -0400 > >I've used both the IOS and the concentrator solutions. I have found the >concentrator solution to be more expensive, but absolutely rock solid. The >IOS solution is less expensive, but there are many bugs even with the >latest >versions. Lots of headaches here. My recommendation: if you have the bucks, >go with the concentrator. By far the better choice from a maintenance and >reliablity aspect. >Lori > >-Original Message- >From: Bob Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 6:46 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Cisco VPN Solutions [7:20468] > > >Hi, > >I'm looking for comments about various Cisco VPN options allowing access >from a home workstation.. >As far as I know my options are: > >1) Cisco PIX accessed by VPN Client 1.1 >2) Cisco 3000 (or 5000) Concentrator accessed by VPN client 3.1 >3) Cisco IPsec IOS access by VPN Client 1.1 > >It would seem that option 3 is the most cost effective (assuming you >already >have the hardware, you just need to purchase the correct IOS).. >Anyone with hints/info/caveats? >Appreciate any feedback from people actually using the IOS and the VPN >client... > >Thanks _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=20564&t=20468 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: seraching for tacacs server [7:20872]
Here is the Cisco link. The software is still available on ftp-eng.cisco.com However, it does require a properly formatted e-mail address as the anonymous password. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/480/tacplus.shtml Jeff. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: seraching for tacacs server [7:20872] Sean- For what it's worth, you nailed it on the head about the old debate of Wintel and Linux( Unix) I happen to have a small background in Solaris and over the last few years, it has proven to be invaluable as a network engineer. Either from understanding how things work to being able to have an intelligent conversation with the Unix admins. A trend I'm starting to see in two different jobs now is that the Cisco geeks are coming in with ONLY cisco knowledge.. they are clueless about Unix , windows or anything else on the wire. Needless to say this causes no end of problems. As far as TACACS goes, I went looking last weekend myself for it and everything pointed to it being deleted from Cisco's web site as an EOL product. I found a freebie for my linx box at www.tuxfinder.com...even in the RPM package for us lazy people ;) MikeS Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=20999&t=20872 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Prefered free TACACS server [7:24434]
Here is the Cisco link. The software is still available on ftp-eng.cisco.com (/pub/tacacs/) via anonymous login. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/480/tacplus.shtml Jeff. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 12:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Prefered free TACACS server [7:24434] Drop by my site.. I have been gathering info and files for TACACS for both Windows and Linux. The Win stuff will posted later this week but the linux stuff is up there along with the docs. So far as I can tell, Cisco has dropped support for TACACS including the FTP site for downloading it. They would rather you buy Ciscoworks. http://www.packetattack.com/downloads.html If you find anything more about TACACS, drop me a line via the site and let me know what you found and where. MikeS Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24503&t=24434 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: load sharing [7:24823]
This scenario assumes that several subnets are routed across these two links. If a subnet or multiple subnets are only routed across one of the links, this could occur. Jeff. -Original Message- From: Mohammed Saro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 2:06 AM To: GroupStudy Subject: load sharing [ Part 1, Text/PLAIN (charset: Unknown "windows-1256") 12 lines. ] [ Unable to print this part. ] [ The following text is in the "windows-1256" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] We have two links to our provider and this provider makes load sharing per packet but sometimes one of two links is saturated and the other has free bandwidth can any one explain this weird behavior Best Regards, Mohamed Saro Senior Network Engineer GEGA NET Tel: +20 2 4149771/2/3/4 ext.:111 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24823&t=24823 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
