IRC Logs

Network: freenode Channel: #cisco

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.irclog.org

[02:27]<gndyvx>aye
[02:27]<msxjv>I'm not ranking on IOS
[02:27]<msxjv>just saying, they have such a large base, it gets messy
[02:27]<gndyvx>there is some cool shit in junos that i wish ios had
[02:27]<msxjv>you can't absorb so much product and keep it super clean
[02:27]<gndyvx>configuration management and logging in junos is prestine
[02:27]<msxjv>such as bpf
[02:27]<vd2r>I like to think of gateway as something to connect networks of dissimilar protocols. more involved than a router. I see what you mean though
[02:28]<msxjv>hey, let me use tcpdump on my router
[02:28]<msxjv>etc
[02:28]<gndyvx>tmbg: right, 10 years ago the two terms were ambiguous
[02:28]<gndyvx>shit it's 5:30
[02:29]<gndyvx>i gotta run home
[02:29]<msxjv>l8z
[02:29]<msxjv>I'm on the verge of bailing myself
[02:31]<msxjv>if I were to venture a modern feel for 'gateway', it seems to me a gateway is more like a box running an OS that isn't necessarily built for routing
[02:31]<msxjv>for instance, using a Linux box for routing
[02:31]<msxjv>tec
[02:31]<msxjv>*etc
[02:31]<msxjv>those to me or more gateways, whereas a router contains an OS specifically built for routing and various other internetworking features
[02:31]<msxjv>in any case, time to bounce
[02:32]<vd2r>to me those *nix boxes are fullblown routers
[03:17]<f00lmnn>hi, is it the reccomended way to connect to services and resources through a vpn other than open on the internet ?
[03:18]<cuzd>Can someone breifly tell me how to configure something advanced in a cisco 3560 switch.... I was told that there is suppose to be more to the web interface than what I'm seeing... but I'm not sure that the person knows what they are talking about..
[03:20]<vd2r>they may be thinking of embedded ciscoview, I'm not sure there's a tarball for that device though.
[03:21]<cuzd>tmbg: where can I get it?
[03:22]<vd2r>looking right now on cisco's site. do you have a CCO account?
[03:22]<cuzd>the guy stated.. that I should be able to right click... or double click.. one of the 48+4 ports... in the picture and find a bunch of settings and options there........... (but it doesn't exist from what I can tell)
[03:23]<cuzd>nope... no account.. is it free or do I need to be part of the in crowd?
[03:25]<cuzd>I have tried both firefox and IE... I can telnet to the device aswell... but I don't know that much about cisco's products.. to know what to type..
[03:25]<cuzd>is this switch fairly useable going through the web interface do you know?? or is my browser just giving me problems on the admin page?
[03:28]<vd2r>if you aren't using the ciscoview web page the web administrator is a lot of times pretty cheesy
[03:29]<cuzd>Where is the ciscoview webpage? And do I have to have a special service or add on to use it?
[03:41]<vd2r>hrm. my bad, there's only a small set of devices w/ embedded ciscoview support.
[03:41]<vd2r>yeah you're pretty much stuck w/ that web interface. newer IOS might give a better web page I guess.
[04:01]<cuzd>where do I d/l new firmware for my switch?
[04:03]<vwcd>www.cisco.com
[04:04]<gndyvx>what switch?
[04:04]<cuzd>where at... in the web interface it says to go to www.cisco.com/public/sw-center/ then I log in.. and I'm not sure where to go..
[04:04]<cuzd>its a 3560
[04:11]<vd2r>kury: I use this thing. pick 3560 as your hardware. http://tools.cisco.com/Support/Fusion/FusionHCHome.do
[04:14]<cucx>anyone here alive?
[04:16]<vd2r>nope
[04:17]<cucx>haha...
[04:17]<cucx>tmbg please advice...
[04:17]<cucx>c3550 vs c3750
[04:17]<cucx>i need rate limiting, small bgp table, ACL's for use in colocation
[04:19]<vd2r>I've never used a 3750 but I hear good things about them
[04:19]<vd2r>3550s are ok but not my favorite.
[04:20]<cucx>wich one is ?
[04:23]<vd2r>bigger switches than you need. stuff like 4500s and 6500s.
[04:23]<dzzc1lyvn>the 3750 are the new shizzle
[04:23]<dzzc1lyvn>everything is better than the 3550
[04:23]<dzzc1lyvn>just more $$
[04:23]<vd2r>of the ~24-48 port switches that I've been on, the 3550 and 3500 are my favorites but I have a feeling I would vastly prefer the 3750 if I was to use one.
[04:25]<cucx>3750 is more than once expensiver...
[04:25]<cucx>:(
[04:28]<cuzd>tmbg: I get a 403 forbidden error
[04:31]<gndyvx>3550 have been EoS i belive
[04:31]<gndyvx>3560 is the replacemnet
[04:32]<dzzc1lyvn>already nemith ?
[04:32]<dzzc1lyvn>not so fast..
[04:38]<gndyvx>3550 has been out for a while
[04:39]<gndyvx>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps646/products_eol_models.html
[04:39]<gndyvx>they still have the 3550 24 DC it seems
[04:40]<gndyvx>probably Metro E for SPs
[04:41]<mggjg>can a low-end cisco (ie: a 1720 or such) have multiple IPs bound to a single interface?
[04:41]<pfredr>not sure on the model, denon
[04:41]<pfredr>denon, your talking using subinterfaces correct?
[04:42]<mggjg>Plazma: well, I think I tried doing subifs with an IP on eth once, and it didnt like it
[04:42]<pfredr>ahh
[04:42]<mggjg>so any other way to do an alias or the like
[04:42]<pfredr>well thats what binding multiple ips to the one interface would entail IIRC.. not sure of any alias like
[04:43]<gndyvx>denon: yes
[04:43]<vwcd>ip addr x.x.x.x m.m.m.m secondary
[04:43]<gndyvx>ip address ... er waht twkm said
[04:43]<mggjg>ahh, that does work? huh
[04:43]<pfredr>ahh
[04:43]<gndyvx>yeah
[04:43]<pfredr>i didnt think that would work ona 1700 series
[04:43]<mggjg>yeah, didnt think so either, we shall see
[04:44]<pfredr>brb
[04:44]<gndyvx>trust me it will work
[04:46]<mggjg>so if I foolishly want to route multiple subnets of lan traffic on one ethernet ..
[04:46]<mggjg>that the best way to do it?
[04:46]<vwcd>it is one way, yes.
[04:46]<mggjg>I'm open to hearing better ways.. :)
[04:46]<vwcd>you might use a static route as well.
[04:47]<vwcd>ip route x.x.x.x m.m.m.m fa0/0
[04:47]<mggjg>wouldnt I still need an IP from that subnet on the interface, though, since it's not like a direct-attach situation?
[04:48]<vwcd>it depends on the nodes on the network.
[04:48]<mggjg>nutshell ver, is we're replacing someone's old router (and it's associated upstream providers) with a new one, and new subnets
[04:48]<mggjg>and I'm trying to give them a clean transition ,so the can bind both IPs to their servers
[04:49]<mggjg>(without a second set of NICs and switche)
[04:49]<mggjg>+s
[04:49]<vwcd>if their systems expect to use x.x.x.x as their default gateway then a secondary address on the interface is simple.
[04:49]<mggjg>systems are currently using the old router as the gateway
[04:50]<mggjg>so Im putting the rule on the old router
[04:50]<mggjg>er route, heh, firewalls on the brain

Back to #cisco
Or go to some related logs:
#ubuntu
#gentoo
#debian
#gentoo
#blender