|
I ordered a pair of 4506's about 2 weeks ago for our office in Hong Kong and they have already shipped. So I'm not sure what the hold up for you is.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
para posted:Has anyone received any new 4500's? We've been waiting months for the ones we ordered to be delivered but they keep saying there's a back order a mile long. Is anyone seeing these actually being delivered? We've got a whole bunch of equipment we're scheduled to start installing tomorrow, that is still MIA. I know a 6500 chassis is in that list, not sure about a 4500 chassis though. I know Cisco has had some supply problems over the last year or so. I think it mostly has to do with underestimating demand, and the supply line just can't seem to catch up. I know there's been 3+ month delays on ASAs and Nexus equipment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 02:39
|
|
|
They scaled back production big time when the recession hit and demand for new equipment waned, then were caught with their pants down when people decided to start upgrading equipment. Does Cisco manufacture their own equipment or do they contract it out to third parties? It's entirely possible that it's a supplier problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:They scaled back production big time when the recession hit and demand for new equipment waned, then were caught with their pants down when people decided to start upgrading equipment. Pretty sure I've seen Foxconn's name on some parts, but that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
n0tqu1tesane posted:Pretty sure I've seen Foxconn's name on some parts, but that makes sense. When you get down to it, even the guys who "make their own" still get a ton of parts from somewhere. Either way the whole shortage is really annoying as hell. Cisco's not the only one. We've had Adtran stuff take forever to get to us too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 05:59
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Does Cisco manufacture their own equipment or do they contract it out to third parties? It's entirely possible that it's a supplier problem. Cisco does "make their own equipment", but their distribution chain is ridiculous. Its global, with the FABs in Malaysia, the Integration in Israel, the coding in Banglore, and the basic electronics suppliers are constantly changing, between various chinese/asian company's depending on who has the best deals, lead times, etc. It's ridiculously complex, and the pipeline is longer than the one in Alaska. Its actually a big problem, because they can't react to market changes soon enough, but in the end its just another symptom of getting that big.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
I have a network with about 100 devices on a 255.255.252 subnet that needs to be connected to our new network that only has about 50 cdevices on a 255.255.255.0 subnet. Should I get a router or a layer 3 switch? Also cost is the biggest factor. I need the least expensive solution. I did some cisco stuff about 3 or 4 years ago. At one time I could configure vlans on switches and routers so I think with a little work, I could configure the device myself.
KelJu fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Aug 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
How much data is crossing the two networks, and what switches are you currently employing? Depending on the traffic, your cheapest option might be an EOL 2621XM with a second unit on standby for redundancy. A L3 switch might be overkill if you've already got both networks on switches and just need to connect the two, but that's just my two cents. Oh yeah, cheerfully withdrawn. vvvv some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Aug 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 19:30
|
|
|
Cisco 3550s are dirt cheap, and will do layer 3 IP routing. 2621XM is only good for 30kpps (hope you're forwarding big packets).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:How much data is crossing the two networks, and what switches are you currently employing? Not much data is crossing the networks. Essentially, I have about 10 computers on the 255.255.252.0 network that just had clients installed that need access to the T1 which is providing internet access to the 255.255.255.0 network. Also, by linking the networks, I could add about 10 computers from the 255.255.255.0 network to the DC on the 255.255.252.0 network. Oh, and this takes it out of the cisco realm, but what is wrong with this layer 3 switch for my purposes? http://www.amazon.com/D-Link-3326SRM-24-Port-Managed-Stackable/dp/B00009KHMU KelJu fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Aug 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
That will most likely work, assuming you are plugging a switch into a switch. If you need to terminate a T1 cross connect, or setup some tunnels or something, you'll need a router.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 07:08
|
|
|
This is going to sound strange. But I want to make my router the most UNPROTECTED I can possibly make it. Letting any and all traffic move through it. This is a temporary thing of course. How can I pull this off? I am trying to run tests on a device I have. The router is no live, so its not a danger to me to have it naked 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
Out of the box, as long as a router has a next hop route for a packet it'll send it on. I don't think there are any restrictions until you add them yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Out of the box, as long as a router has a next hop route for a packet it'll send it on. I don't think there are any restrictions until you add them yourself. Well to explain my problem a bit. I was told that as soon as I installed my new Cisco 1811 this old as crap device stopped working: http://www.amazon.com/Dell-Axim-X5-400-Pocket/dp/B00007GPI1 We have other devices like this that are newer (and don't require a plugged in wireless card) but they can connect to the wireless just fine. To me, the settings look the same on both devices. I guess the only good way to test out whether it is my device or the new router is to take it home and try it on my wireless network.... Currently we use WPA-PSK as our wireless encryption, though this bit of information probably isn't helpful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 18:55
|
|
|
If other devices are working wirelessly through the router, then its not the settings on the router, it an incompatibility somewhere. Maybe the device only works with 802.11b, and the router isn't using that, so you have to turn it on. MAybe the device doesn't understand a keylength greate than 48bits? Who knows, but its obviously a device limitation, and not a router security issue. That said, check some basic things on the router, sh mac-address-table look for the device mac, check that it is being assigned an IP, sh arp, possibly debug the wireless association process. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Aug 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:If other devices are working wirelessly through the router, then its not the settings on the router, it an incompatibility somewhere. Maybe the device only works with 802.11b, and the router isn't using that, so you have to turn it on. MAybe the device doesn't understand a keylength greate than 48bits? Who knows, but its obviously a device limitation, and not a router security issue. Actually the device uses a device that utilizes 802.11b, it is that old. Could this be the issue? Can I implement something in the router to accept this? I should mention that it is not being assigned an IP. EDIT EDIT: Oh, also our WAP are basic netgear wireless. Those WAP's are connected to my 1811 and they are running WPA-PSK. Bardlebee fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Aug 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
Has the WAP configuration changed? If the 'b' devices can't connect make sure that you're not operating in 'g' only mode or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Has the WAP configuration changed? If the 'b' devices can't connect make sure that you're not operating in 'g' only mode or something like that. Nothing has changed. Strangely enough if they take this device to an off site location they can connect to the router, get internet, but however when they try to get on to the server thats behind my new shiny (refurbished) cisco router, it doesn't work. On site, it simply can't grab an IP for probably same reason it can't get through the cisco. On site being the cisco being the main router.. my off site locations have the same lovely retail routers. I say throw this palm pilot out, as it it was made in the ninety's, sadly I won't get this option. My WAP's support a/b/g and are currently running WPA-PSK, TKIP. Which makes me wonder if I should try just switching to WPA-PSK+WPA2-PSK, AES mode just to see what happens. It seems like its the devices limitations, but drat I really don't want that to happen because I garauntee you they will take down my new router (which has made our network a beautiful dream of stability) and replace it back with that 100 dollar piece of garbage. Eh, rant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
Wait can you doodle up a little thing of how your network is laid out (if you can)? Is the DHCP server on a separate network from the WAP? You will actually need to issue the ip helper-address command on the interface connected to the WAP's network to get it to pass those on. edit: Nevermind, you mentioned some devices could connect. I'm not making any sense. Please ignore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 23:00
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Wait can you doodle up a little thing of how your network is laid out (if you can)? Is the DHCP server on a separate network from the WAP? You will actually need to issue the ip helper-address command on the interface connected to the WAP's network to get it to pass those on. I can doodle something. Essentially for purposes right now as I do not have the tools right here... I have the 1811 which is purely wired. DHCP comes from it and it does NAT and VPN connections thats it. Connected to that are my WAP's, which are netgear WAP's and yes I haven't had a problem until this 802.11b-hi-im-from-ninteen-ninety's device. I just tried it at home as well, and it locks up on me, so I am going to try it at another site tomorrow and see if I get the same issue. I am calling it on the device itself, but will let you know. Thanks for the help on this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 03:52
|
|
|
Bardlebee posted:Nothing has changed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 03:56
|
|
|
Just got my 871 today from Amazon. Out of the box, it's running 12.4(15)T13, but latest release is up to 12.24. Read somewhere that it comes with a year warranty on it which includes IOS releases, but Cisco's demanding a support contract to get at them. What's the dealio?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 04:25
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter posted:Just got my 871 today from Amazon. Brand new or used?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 06:24
|
|
|
Ok, I connected this old piece of garbage (this palm) to my network where I installed the Cisco 1811. I switched over one of our WAP's to WEP and it connected fine, except it is not getting granted an IP address. It always tries and gets stuck with 169.254.something.windowsIP. So, it's not getting an IP from the router. Is there a reason for this? It seems it can connect fine to WAP, but the router says no. It seems that due to this device being unable to handle new and shiny things, it is causing much frustration. Any clues on how I can get traffic to go through this Cisco with this device or to get an IP address for this little thing? One more question... how do I completely open a port on the cisco? If I wanted to do port 60001 would it be a part of the access-list like this: access-list 107 permit tcp any any 60001 Things we know: Palm is using 802.11b Only connects with WEP, WPA or WPA2 is not available to it. It can connect off site (I found out offsite uses WEP to my ever lasting shame, this is changing) They can get internet offsite, but again cannot get to my servers back at the main office where I installed the Cisco. Bardlebee fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Aug 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
There is no port 600,001 in TCP or UDP. Do you mean 60,001? The Cisco shouldn't be affecting any ports by default (the only exception I can think of is enabling NAT, whereupon some H.323 fixup stuff happens automatically).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
I retract this post. I just realized all the other Palms work fine under this port. I'm stupid. Still this thing can't grab an IP. Dang!code:Bardlebee fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Aug 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 17:56
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Brand new or used? brand new. Just got around to setting fire to the horrible GUI config CD it came with. Jimmy Carter fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Aug 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 20:31
|
|
|
Jimmy Carter posted:brand new. Just got around to setting fire to the horrible GUI config CD it came with. Have you setup a Cisco login account yet, and have you registered it? If all of those things don't do it for ya, I might be able to help
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Have you setup a Cisco login account yet, and have you registered it? Got an account, have no goddamn clue where to register my device. It keeps asking me for my reseller/service contract code, of which I have none.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
Bardlebee posted:I retract this post. I just realized all the other Palms work fine under this port. I'm stupid. Still this thing can't grab an IP. Dang! So let me get this straight. You have multiple devices, they all connect to an external wireless access point that is connected to the Cisco 1811. All of them but this really old are getting IP Addresses, internet etc. However when you take the old device to a different site that uses WEP and an old route, it is able to get an IP Address just fine. So it seems to me that the issue is the device only supports WEP, and/or only does 802.11b. So i'm almost certain that the device is not associating with the WAP in the first place, because once it does that, the router won't care what the end device is. It just sees a MAC and associates an IP address with it. If it never sees a MAC then the WAP isn't forwarding a MAC to it. Although, you might have a duplicate MAC Address or something odd like that. I'd check those things. WEP/802.11b support/MAC Addresses/Static IP on the device itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 12:57
|
|
|
Well, yeah. It makes a connection and off site is just fine. You got it exactly right. But it can't get to my servers on the other side of the router. Also, like I may or may not have mentioned I switched my WAP to WEP over here, it said "connected" just fine but it was given an 169.254 number. So it seems like it is at least getting on the wireless. Ugh, I wish I could just throw this thing out and get a new one. What I may try is just giving it a static IP, in this case it would be my Laredo office which would be 192.168.7.181 or something. Just to see if that solves the issue. I am having them go out to Laredo today and testing a new Palm that is known to work with WPA-PSK. With that said, I wonder if its my Laredo lovely router thats the issue. Hopefully I will find out soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 15:23
|
|
|
Bardlebee posted:Well, yeah. It makes a connection and off site is just fine. You got it exactly right. But it can't get to my servers on the other side of the router. Also, like I may or may not have mentioned I switched my WAP to WEP over here, it said "connected" just fine but it was given an 169.254 number. So it seems like it is at least getting on the wireless. Ugh, I wish I could just throw this thing out and get a new one. It might be kind of messy but can you use the WAP's to dole out DHCP for anything that connects to them? I would suggest using a different VLAN so that you don't end up with hosed up DHCP databases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 16:16
|
|
|
I was putting a few ports into a VLAN on one of the 24-port Catalyst 2950 switches at work the other day, and I noticed that when I do "show vlan", it lists a total of 48 ports, even though it's a 24-port switch. Why? In the same vein, we have a mix of 24-port and 48-port 2950s, which each have 2x gigabit ports. Are these ports for uplink/trunking only, or can I plug a server into them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
I hope this is okay to post about but next year or maybe September at the earliest, I wanted to start taking Cisco Network Design & Security courses at this one college near where I live. Its a set of 6 classes spread out over 2 quarters and prepares you for one of the cisco certificates if you want to take that exam. Is the exam worth taking or will the classes do? Ideally I would like to use this knowledge to obtain a job, this is a field i'm interested in getting into. I have very little knowledge of Cisco though (thats what the classes are for obviously) and I guess what i'm really asking is what can I read up on before I start taking these classes? I've already started skimming through the cisco website.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 17:23
|
|
|
Tsaven Nava posted:I was putting a few ports into a VLAN on one of the 24-port Catalyst 2950 switches at work the other day, and I noticed that when I do "show vlan", it lists a total of 48 ports, even though it's a 24-port switch. Why? Could you show us that output? Sounds strange. Tsaven Nava posted:In the same vein, we have a mix of 24-port and 48-port 2950s, which each have 2x gigabit ports. Are these ports for uplink/trunking only, or can I plug a server into them? They are normal ports and can be used both for uplinking / trunking / servers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
Tsaven Nava posted:I was putting a few ports into a VLAN on one of the 24-port Catalyst 2950 switches at work the other day, and I noticed that when I do "show vlan", it lists a total of 48 ports, even though it's a 24-port switch. Why?or can I plug a server into them? Is it actually going up to Fa0/48 ? Or is it displaying the same interface multiple times ? The latter is quite common if you have trunks (such as when you're doing 'switchport voice vlan' for separate voice/data VLANs).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
ior posted:Could you show us that output? Sounds strange. *Double checks* Or, I could have plugged the console cable into the wrong switch, and promptly kicked our Sales and Accounting directors off the network because they happened to go onto the new VLAN. That I created on the wrong switch. Okay, now that's fixed and all fine and dandy. Unrelated question: We're also looking to replace one of our 24-port 2950s with an all gigabit switch. Am I correct in reading that the 2960 (specifically, the WS-C2960S-24TS-S) is functionally identical to the 2950 switches, with the exception being that all the ports are 10/100/1000, and not just 10/100?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:So let me get this straight. You have multiple devices, they all connect to an external wireless access point that is connected to the Cisco 1811. All of them but this really old are getting IP Addresses, internet etc. Ok, I just confirmed that the router they are using in Laredo is a different one then any of my off site locations. It is a lower grade one (not that the off site ones were any worse) then the retail ones we use in the off site locations. I am going to replace it with an identical one like our off site locations for now to see how this data goes through. Ugh, thats a three hour drive. Did I mention I hate doctors? No? Well, I hate those pre-madonna, self-entitled dudes. Not all of them, mind you. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 21:44
|
|
|
Tsaven Nava posted:Unrelated question: We're also looking to replace one of our 24-port 2950s with an all gigabit switch. Am I correct in reading that the 2960 (specifically, the WS-C2960S-24TS-S) is functionally identical to the 2950 switches, with the exception being that all the ports are 10/100/1000, and not just 10/100? 2960G actually. The "G" is important.  Cisco Catalyst 2960G-48TC Switch (WS-C2960G-48TC-L) or one of the 2960-S series from this list: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6406/prod_models_comparison.html CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Aug 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Yea the 2960S is a 10/100/1000 24 or 48 port switch that does PoE and optionally has 10G uplinks. The G is simliar but they are not PoE, and don't have 10G uplinks. S is hte newest one, and therefore the most expensive, G is older, and if you don't get PoE, they are pretty affordable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 22:08
|
|