Hi,
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 08:52:32PM -0700, Kevin Graham wrote:
> Sorry, the thought of being able to plan forward-looking purchases and
> technology migrations this beautifully makes me tingly... _These_
> would be the moves of a dominant market leader with a rich innovative
> history.
Full
> I think this is really the thing that annoys me most - they know how
> to do it right, and conciously decided to go the other way.
Yep. The single biggest reason I'm not advocating Nexus 5000/7000's today
is the lack of NX-OS on the Sup720. If there was roadmap for it to also
include existing D
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:46:44PM -0700, Kevin Graham wrote:
> Though there's always bumps, but the GSR (IOS->XR) and 6500 (CatOS->IOS) were
> well-executed, customer focused migrations that allowed each to move forward
> without alienating an existing install base and complicating future pur
> On the other hand, do you remember how long did it take to run native IOS on
> 65xx with the majority (not all) of the CatOS features?
Considering "IOS Feature Parity" was an SXI objective, quite a bit. It took a
long time, but the fundamental difference is that eventual convergence was
alw
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, David Hughes wrote:
On 16/09/2009, at 6:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Just imagine how much functionality NX-OS could get if they would stop
wasting effort on 17 different software trains for "classic IOS" and
instead focus on getting NX-OS on all hardware platforms, and g
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 7:43 PM, David Hughes wrote:
>
> On 16/09/2009, at 6:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Just imagine how much functionality NX-OS could get if they would stop
>> wasting effort on 17 different software trains for "classic IOS" and
>> instead focus on getting NX-OS on all hard
On 16/09/2009, at 6:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Just imagine how much functionality NX-OS could get if they would stop
wasting effort on 17 different software trains for "classic IOS" and
instead focus on getting NX-OS on all hardware platforms, and getting
feature parity for it.
Totally agree
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 05:30:11PM +0100, Alan Buxey wrote:
> > that is not feasible, completely abandon IOS and provide XE or NX-OS
> > on *all* platforms)
>
> NX-OS on all platforms? nothanks - some of us want functionality ;-)
The problem with the multitude of different operating systems
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:47:17AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 09:52:36AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >>While you're at it, ask for protected memory in the software. It's
> >>not like ram/flash are expensive these
> > that is not feasible, completely abandon IOS and provide XE or NX-OS
> > on *all* platforms)
>
> NX-OS on all platforms? nothanks - some of us want functionality ;-)
No, that's exactly the problem. The balkanization of the OS platforms
only amplifies this; "non-core" functionality such as
> It's sad when you see all the effort that went into the modular over the
> years
> being thrown away/ignored then keep having devices crash with more
> catastrophic
> outcomes and no usable debugging information.
Indeed, that too and the (much anticipated) promise of hot-patching never seem
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 09:52:36AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> While you're at it, ask for protected memory in the software. It's
> not like ram/flash are expensive these days...
Does "modular" have that? Or not yet?
(I want to see modular on *all* IOS based platforms, and not as a
some
On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 09:52:36AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
While you're at it, ask for protected memory in the software. It's
not like ram/flash are expensive these days...
Does "modular" have that? Or not yet?
(I want to see modula
Hi,
> that is not feasible, completely abandon IOS and provide XE or NX-OS
> on *all* platforms)
NX-OS on all platforms? nothanks - some of us want functionality ;-)
alan
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mai
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:28 PM, Kevin Graham wrote:
Sorry for the late response, had to dig through some old cases...
But anyway - my routers are lying to me. They list *.179 just fine
(BGP),
but all the other interesting stuff (telnet, ssh, ldp) is not
there...
Last dug into this 2.5y a
Sorry for the late response, had to dig through some old cases...
> But anyway - my routers are lying to me. They list *.179 just fine (BGP),
> but all the other interesting stuff (telnet, ssh, ldp) is not there...
Last dug into this 2.5y ago (while looking into PSIRT cisco-sa-20070131-sip)
and
Gert,
When I run the command I see al the active BGP/SSH/LDP sessions with Local
Address, Foreign Address and state (ESTAB/LISTEN)
There is one entry in the table which I find a bit strange.
*.* *.*LISTEN
Listener on all ports???
Regards,
Mark
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:50:23AM -0400, Randy McAnally wrote:
> > So - to summarize this: "the only way to reliably detect what sockets
> > the box is listening on is to run nmap against it", right?
>
> Regardless, run NMAP anyways. Never trust what the box tells you even if it
> did list
> So - to summarize this: "the only way to reliably detect what sockets
> the box is listening on is to run nmap against it", right?
Regardless, run NMAP anyways. Never trust what the box tells you even if it
did list your listening ports 'properly'.
--
Randy
___
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:22:04AM -0400, Eloy Paris wrote:
> > But anyway - my routers are lying to me. They list *.179 just fine (BGP),
> > but all the other interesting stuff (telnet, ssh, ldp) is not there...
>
> In a Cisco Security Advisory that we published last year
> (http://www.cisc
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:09:43PM +0200, Mark Meijerink wrote:
> When I run the command I see al the active BGP/SSH/LDP sessions with Local
> Address, Foreign Address and state (ESTAB/LISTEN)
Which IOS version is that? I tried with 12.2S and 12.2SXF and SXI2,
and while I see telnet/LDP as
Hi Gert,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 02:16:17PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:48:46PM +0200, Mark Meijerink wrote:
> > When your run the show tcp brief all command you also see the listening
> > ports.
> >
> > router#show tcp brief ?
> > all All end-points (eve
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:48:46PM +0200, Mark Meijerink wrote:
> When your run the show tcp brief all command you also see the listening ports.
>
> router#show tcp brief ?
> all All end-points (even listeners)
Oh. Cool. For whatever reason, I overlooked this.
But anyway - my routers a
Antonio Soares wrote:
Hello group,
What actions are you taking ? What is the real risk ?
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20090908-tcp24.shtml
If I'm reading the notes correctly, to exploit the problem the attacker
must be able to complete a TCP 3-way handshake. That would impl
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:52:04PM +0100, Antonio Soares wrote:
> What actions are you taking ? What is the real risk ?
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20090908-tcp24.shtml
"scream, wave your arms, run around in circles"...
Seriously: I'm not exactly sure what the actual i
Hello group,
What actions are you taking ? What is the real risk ?
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20090908-tcp24.shtml
Thanks.
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S)
amsoa...@netcabo.pt
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puc
26 matches
Mail list logo
