Have you tried BBSM, it much easier than that to use and it's compatible
with all popular billing systems. I did many installs of it as a Cisco SE
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
You should use the port protected feature on the switches instead of
separate vlans. This let's you use a single vlan or whatever needed, but
does not allow a port within a vlan to talk to another port in the vlan.
You can also implement this for meeting rooms on the cisco wireless products
but
The pix does have limited routing functionality. It can route packets but
it's not it's primary purpose. It's primary purpose is however NAT / PAT /
stateful inspection etc... With that said it can perform NAT/PAT in
realtime, much faster than a router which has a multitude of functions to
I used to work in a high visibility position within Cisco and John Chambers
told me he was not interested in entering this market space in any way shape
or form. With that said, we had developed several products, such as a low
end broadband router with built in firewall and vpn access, and low
With 3des encryption is it only capable of doing 3MB per sec.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bk
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: pix 501 limitations [7:65785]
Good day,
I thought I read somewhere
Yes you really should. Bandwidth is never an answer to realtime traffic
consistency, it's really a question of queue management. You should still
use QoS on the gig links. On this laptop I don't have the CCO links handy
but there are plenty out there if you do a quick search. The 2950's are
interest maybe we can even setup a mail alias devoted to it.
Dave
CCIE #6746
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=65478t=65478
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
7 matches
Mail list logo
