Cisco has updated the advisory, to version 1.3, which includes a great
deal more detail regarding the vulnerability.
Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>It sounds like this is a hypothetical packet and situation that Cisco
>quality assurance discovered. I thought it was something already being
>explo
Jans van Deventer wrote:
>>I have a 1600 router running a 12021 IP PLUS --- I have tried to
>>add access-lists to block all sites incoming except 192.100.34.100-> 150.
>
>
>>Can someone help with the correct lists.
>
>
> - jvd wrote:
>
>>This is interesting. Obviously one solution is to den
Mike Mandulak wrote:
> .. and Openview and Sniffers and SNA and MVS and Unix and clusters and VAX
> and Concord and etc...
>
> Your probably right about the downsizing, if that's the case I pity the
poor
> soul who takes the 4 jobs. BTDT, they gave me the tee-shirt.
I burned mine, and I ain't go
I can solve that issue with 4 stars
- Original Message -
From: "The Long and Winding Road"
To:
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Bizzare Routing/VPN Issue [7:64301]
> this is a complex situation that requires that you fly me out your way and
> pay my stay at a five star
That's actually an accurate statement. From the White House's 'National
Strategy to Secure Cyberspace', "(iii) Border Gateway Protocol. Of the many
routing protocols in use within the Internet, the Border Gateway Protocol
(BGP) is at greatest risk of being the target of attacks designed to
disru
MPLS uses the CEF table adjacencies in establishing a Label Switched Path.
Additionally, each VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF) uses a derived CEF
table, in addition to its own forwarding table.
There's a pretty good list 'mpls-ops' hosted at mplsrc.com if you want to
get more involved in MPLS. J
If you're asking what I think you're asking, then I think your answer is
yes, but you won't be able to pass any traffic across the circuit. Unless
you've confused me (it doesn't seem I would be the only one), then the
answer might not be the same.
- Original Message -
From: "Monu Sekhon"
I know I said earlier this doesn't work, but I was doing some other testing
in the lab today, and we use IS-IS as our IGP, so I decided to play with
this for fun.
IOS is 12.0(23)S1, on a 12016, the neighbor is a Cat6k-MSFC2 running
12.1(8a)E5, adjacency is across SRP, so YMMV
router isis
Ben,
According to CCO you need 12.0(7)XK, 12.1(1)T, 12.2, or 12.2T.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/107/nm-fe2w.shtml
Best Regards,
John
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Hockenhull"
To:
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 8:15 AM
Subject: 3640 and 2 NM-2FE-2W? [7:62346]
> I've got a 36
Leonardo,
You shouldn't be able to change the MAC address on the Cable Interface.
That's how the cable modem is associated to the customer and receives it's
correct address scope for Class of Service, etc. The reason your 924 is
receiving the disabled.bin config file is because your MAC address
Thanks Jason, I needed a laugh this morning Oh, Field Notice, Please
Help Us
John
- Original Message -
From: "Barbee Jason"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:14 AM
Subject: O/T Funny Network Song [7:61454]
> I haven't seen this posted here yet, sorry if I missed it in rec
Rajesh,
47.0001 will not form an adjacency with 47.0002. For them to exchange L1
routes you need to change their ISIS Area IDs in their NET so they're in
the
same area. Alternatively you could insert a third router as an L2, and
leak
your routes from the L2 into the L1s.
You'll also need t
You can do a google site search, 'site:www.cisco.com caveats' a
search for 12.2 caveats results in:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cavs/122m
cavs.htm#wp272109
- Original Message -
From: "Wei Zhu"
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 7:16 PM
Subject:
The message format is FACILITY-SEVERITY-MNEMONIC. So this is a message from
the BGP Facility, the severity indicates functionality may be affected, and
the message identifier is 'Notification.' In this case the Error Code is 2
(Open) and the SubCode is 7 (Unsupported Capability - see RFC2842).
T
Currently the 6500/7600 can only function as a PE with an OSM. Assuming
you have one, you would configure the ethernet port your 2500 is connecting
to into a unique vlan, then configure one of the Gig-E ports on the OSM as
your 'upstream' using dot1q encapsulation, and terminate your VRF there.
I
Actually he *did* answer it. Write it out in binary, it should be crystal
clear.
- Original Message -
From: "Ted Marinich"
To:
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: Darth Reid R1 Access-list [7:58644]
> The Long and Winding Road:
>
> As you can see from my original post
I would suspect a Linux box somewhere on your net that has a new Samba
install on it. The default configuration is set for the box to attempt to
be the Master Browser. A tool like NMAP will help you identify the type of
device you're dealing with, this could help in a process of elimination,
oth
17 matches
Mail list logo
