Re: FW: Why Cisco and not ...........!!! [7:19933]
Awww, that's funny! (I don't know which new features I need, but if you don't know 12.0, you can't tell me which features I need, so let's call it a washsee ya later, Mr. 'Old Tech 11.2') Adding to that, instead of just upgrading the routers that NEED the new features (for me, usually at the access level because of the advances in bandwidth grooming features), some shops (understandably) want uniform levels of code, which I find a bit overrated. Consistency in sections and versions...yes. Consistency to weed out major bugs and broken code? definitely. Consistency for consistency's sake? Well...ummm...errr...ahhhjust document it really well and upgrade if/when you find the need. - Original Message - From: Chuck Larrieu To: EA Louie ; Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 5:38 PM Subject: RE: FW: Why Cisco and not ...!!! [7:19933] This is an interesting point, and one worth discussing a bit further. I can still recall an interview during the course of which the interviewer questioned my qualification in part because my experience was with IOS 11.2. He stated that they used IOS 12.0 ( newly released at the time. ) I asked why, and he said because we need the new features I had the temerity to ask which ones. There was no answer. The interview went down hill from there. Some folks are upgrade freaks. My own opinion is that in a heavy duty production environment the only reason should upgrade is if the upgrade fixes an identifiable problem. These days, the latest IOS is not necessarily the best IOS. Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of EA Louie Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 2:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Why Cisco and not ...!!! [7:19933] ya know, I am a fan of if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but dudeDo you Me too. and if I never have to mess with the routers because they're doing their job, then why upgrade or futz with them, especially a core router? I love to tinker just like everyone else, but the great thing about a production network is that if everything IS running, then I can let it be and work on some of the other stuff that's important (like my lab studies ;-) If I don't need no new features, then I don't upgrade until I do. I once had a boss who had to have THE LATEST version of code on our network and would make us schedule IOS upgrades regularly, even when we complained that there was no value-add to the upgrade. I guess that's the OTHER extreme...and then we'd have a relatively short amount of time to configure the 'new features' of the code into our network (I really learned to hate frame-relay traffic shaping). never want the fixes and features of newer code? Just curious... Especialy with Cisco NAT in it's infant stages... -Patrick _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=20110t=19933 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: Why Cisco and not ...........!!! [7:19933]
This is an interesting point, and one worth discussing a bit further. I can still recall an interview during the course of which the interviewer questioned my qualification in part because my experience was with IOS 11.2. He stated that they used IOS 12.0 ( newly released at the time. ) I asked why, and he said because we need the new features I had the temerity to ask which ones. There was no answer. The interview went down hill from there. Some folks are upgrade freaks. My own opinion is that in a heavy duty production environment the only reason should upgrade is if the upgrade fixes an identifiable problem. These days, the latest IOS is not necessarily the best IOS. Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of EA Louie Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 2:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Why Cisco and not ...!!! [7:19933] ya know, I am a fan of if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but dudeDo you Me too. and if I never have to mess with the routers because they're doing their job, then why upgrade or futz with them, especially a core router? I love to tinker just like everyone else, but the great thing about a production network is that if everything IS running, then I can let it be and work on some of the other stuff that's important (like my lab studies ;-) If I don't need no new features, then I don't upgrade until I do. I once had a boss who had to have THE LATEST version of code on our network and would make us schedule IOS upgrades regularly, even when we complained that there was no value-add to the upgrade. I guess that's the OTHER extreme...and then we'd have a relatively short amount of time to configure the 'new features' of the code into our network (I really learned to hate frame-relay traffic shaping). never want the fixes and features of newer code? Just curious... Especialy with Cisco NAT in it's infant stages... -Patrick _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=20080t=19933 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Why Cisco and not ...........!!! [7:19933]
then you have people like me, who just can't leave well enough alone. I upgraded the 7513 @ my old job. I added VIP's (replacing the old AIP's) an RSP4 in a working Nortel/ Cisco LANE environment. Although- I can prove I repaired the RSP2's over-utilization problems (by removing the AIP's that feed off of the RSP), I was not able to correct the new problem of needing reboot the router once a week to keep LANE clients established :o) Phil - Original Message - From: Chuck Larrieu To: Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 8:54 PM Subject: RE: FW: Why Cisco and not ...!!! [7:19933] This is an interesting point, and one worth discussing a bit further. I can still recall an interview during the course of which the interviewer questioned my qualification in part because my experience was with IOS 11.2. He stated that they used IOS 12.0 ( newly released at the time. ) I asked why, and he said because we need the new features I had the temerity to ask which ones. There was no answer. The interview went down hill from there. Some folks are upgrade freaks. My own opinion is that in a heavy duty production environment the only reason should upgrade is if the upgrade fixes an identifiable problem. These days, the latest IOS is not necessarily the best IOS. Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of EA Louie Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 2:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Why Cisco and not ...!!! [7:19933] ya know, I am a fan of if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but dudeDo you Me too. and if I never have to mess with the routers because they're doing their job, then why upgrade or futz with them, especially a core router? I love to tinker just like everyone else, but the great thing about a production network is that if everything IS running, then I can let it be and work on some of the other stuff that's important (like my lab studies ;-) If I don't need no new features, then I don't upgrade until I do. I once had a boss who had to have THE LATEST version of code on our network and would make us schedule IOS upgrades regularly, even when we complained that there was no value-add to the upgrade. I guess that's the OTHER extreme...and then we'd have a relatively short amount of time to configure the 'new features' of the code into our network (I really learned to hate frame-relay traffic shaping). never want the fixes and features of newer code? Just curious... Especialy with Cisco NAT in it's infant stages... -Patrick _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=20083t=19933 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: Why Cisco and not ...........!!! [7:19933]
people like you end up writing books respected by all and becoming elder statesmen. :- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Circusnuts Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 6:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Why Cisco and not ...!!! [7:19933] then you have people like me, who just can't leave well enough alone. I upgraded the 7513 @ my old job. I added VIP's (replacing the old AIP's) an RSP4 in a working Nortel/ Cisco LANE environment. Although- I can prove I repaired the RSP2's over-utilization problems (by removing the AIP's that feed off of the RSP), I was not able to correct the new problem of needing reboot the router once a week to keep LANE clients established :o) Phil - Original Message - From: Chuck Larrieu To: Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 8:54 PM Subject: RE: FW: Why Cisco and not ...!!! [7:19933] This is an interesting point, and one worth discussing a bit further. I can still recall an interview during the course of which the interviewer questioned my qualification in part because my experience was with IOS 11.2. He stated that they used IOS 12.0 ( newly released at the time. ) I asked why, and he said because we need the new features I had the temerity to ask which ones. There was no answer. The interview went down hill from there. Some folks are upgrade freaks. My own opinion is that in a heavy duty production environment the only reason should upgrade is if the upgrade fixes an identifiable problem. These days, the latest IOS is not necessarily the best IOS. Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of EA Louie Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 2:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Why Cisco and not ...!!! [7:19933] ya know, I am a fan of if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but dudeDo you Me too. and if I never have to mess with the routers because they're doing their job, then why upgrade or futz with them, especially a core router? I love to tinker just like everyone else, but the great thing about a production network is that if everything IS running, then I can let it be and work on some of the other stuff that's important (like my lab studies ;-) If I don't need no new features, then I don't upgrade until I do. I once had a boss who had to have THE LATEST version of code on our network and would make us schedule IOS upgrades regularly, even when we complained that there was no value-add to the upgrade. I guess that's the OTHER extreme...and then we'd have a relatively short amount of time to configure the 'new features' of the code into our network (I really learned to hate frame-relay traffic shaping). never want the fixes and features of newer code? Just curious... Especialy with Cisco NAT in it's infant stages... -Patrick _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=20093t=19933 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Why Cisco and not ...........!!! [7:19933]
ya know, I am a fan of if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but dudeDo you never want the fixes and features of newer code? Just curious... Especialy with Cisco NAT in it's infant stages... -Patrick David Toalson 09/14/01 11:52AM I work at a subsidiary of a large healthcare company. My office is 100% Cisco for Routers and Switches. We have a total of 30 routers and 8 switches. I work with 30 remote sites, a main office and separate Data Center. I have attached a show version from one of our two 7505 core routers. As you can see it has been up for over 4 years without any problems. Our second has been up almost 2 years. My parent company is a Nortel shop. They have to re-boot their core router about every 45-60 days or more offten and many of their switches on a regular basis. Granted, they push a lot more data through their system, but still.. As approximately 1/3 of my remote sites run across the Parent company WAN a majority of the down time I am faced with is because of the Nortel equipment. I don't know if this will help, but it makes me feel better to vent a little. Please call me if you want any more specifics. CHSDCBsh clock 10:17:14.824 UTC Fri Sep 14 2001 CHSDCBsh ver Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) GS Software (RSP-JV-M), Version 11.1(9)CA1, EARLY DEPLOYMENT RELEASE S Synced to mainline version: 11.1(9) Copyright (c) 1986-1997 by cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Wed 26-Mar-97 22:34 by bellb Image text-base: 0x60010900, data-base: 0x60A0A000 ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 5.3.2(3.2) [kmac 3.2], MAINTENANCE INTERIM SOFTWE ROM: GS Software (RSP-JV-M), Version 11.1(6), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) CHSDCB uptime is 4 years, 23 weeks, 2 days, 14 hours, 26 minutes System restarted by reload at 19:50:36 UTC Fri Apr 4 1997 System image file is slot0:1119ca.bin, booted via slot0 David Toalson 816-701-4142 -- From: chica[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Reply To: chica Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 8:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why Cisco and not ...!!! [7:19933] Hello Guys, after recovering from the shock of WTC,I just remembered that life still has to goes on. I have a quest and it is : I am due to appear on an interview on Monday 17th Sep., and I have to give a presentation on why cisco, and not other competitors. I have to be able to convince my interviewers in fine english, why(and how) cisco products(old and new), protocols,strategy or policy gives cisco an edge over other competitors, and therefore places cisco at the top most position. I have gathered some facts already from cisco's website and have acquired some knowledge of cisco over the years from experience and certifications, but as this is a matter of do it well and get the job,or not,I thought it was a good idea to share your experiences,advice,facts etc,etc. I would be very thankful for any input at all. Thank you. chika __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=19969t=19933 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Why Cisco and not ...........!!! [7:19933]
ya know, I am a fan of if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but dudeDo you Me too. and if I never have to mess with the routers because they're doing their job, then why upgrade or futz with them, especially a core router? I love to tinker just like everyone else, but the great thing about a production network is that if everything IS running, then I can let it be and work on some of the other stuff that's important (like my lab studies ;-) If I don't need no new features, then I don't upgrade until I do. I once had a boss who had to have THE LATEST version of code on our network and would make us schedule IOS upgrades regularly, even when we complained that there was no value-add to the upgrade. I guess that's the OTHER extreme...and then we'd have a relatively short amount of time to configure the 'new features' of the code into our network (I really learned to hate frame-relay traffic shaping). never want the fixes and features of newer code? Just curious... Especialy with Cisco NAT in it's infant stages... -Patrick _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=20013t=19933 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
