|
Cisco certified power cable. Only $49.95!
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
H.R. Paperstacks posted:What is everyone using for inventory tracking and does it support parent/child relationships for piece parts (line cards / modules)? We currently use an Excel spreadsheet that I built with respective tabs for each site, drop-down menus for most of the column information, and it has several functions and formulas for populating contract information from a sheet that has all of the appropriate information provided from the vendor. Netdisco is pretty good for this. It keeps track of line card information as well as all the basics and functions as a reasonable mac/ip/port database. However, it has no manual entry so if you want any details other than what you can poll via SNMP you're out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Prescription Combs posted:Cisco certified power cable. Only $49.95! I wish they only cost this much. gently caress those stupid 3750X power cables.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Kirios posted:I wish they only cost this much. gently caress those stupid 3750X power cables. You mean just the XPS 2200 power cables? Those aren't required, the 3750X still takes a standard AC power supply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Not w/ the 715watt power supplies. Sorry, should have clarified, it's the PoE 3750's. Edit: I'm sure if you're desperate enough you can probably cut a slit into a standard power cable and use it, but still, I recall it being almost 200 dollars to order a cable with that weird end that connects to a NEMA NEMA L5-15 twist lock. Kirios fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I ran into that. I run different colored power cables to redundant PDUs so you can tell at a glance that your redundancy is right, and I couldn't plug in my colored power cords to my 4500-Xs because of the notch. C13 is the standard plug. C15 is the standard for the notched plug. So for 208/240 you want C15 to C14. Here's a good vendor: http://www.stayonline.com/c14-c15-cords.aspx. I paid $16 per 8' cord for red and blue. Black is cheaper. Maybe they don't have L5-15 ends, but they do custom cords.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
You can probably find C15 cables for no more than $10-15 too if you look around. They're used on electric kettles, space heaters and other things that draw 1KW or more, nothing super special about them apart from a higher heat tolerance. fake edit: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0091F8F1G
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
That's...actually good to know. I honestly didn't think to see if amazon would carry them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
We ran into an issue where Cisco sent a customer the wrong cables and then wanted several thousand dollars to provide the right ones 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:You can probably find C15 cables for no more than $10-15 too if you look around. They're used on electric kettles, space heaters and other things that draw 1KW or more, nothing super special about them apart from a higher heat tolerance. also here https://www.cablesandkits.com/cisco-3900-series-ac-power-cord-us-cabc15ac-8ft-p-5332.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
99% of the time we never use the vendor provided power cables because we custom order power cables for each install. If we can prevent them from shipping them to us with an order, even better because they usually end up in the dumpster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Does anyone run a dual stack network or even a fully native ipv6 network? If so, why and what are some of the benefits
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
I have it setup across three sites in CT, NJ, HK and test tools report it can yield lower latencies but I just don't know the best way forward with private networks to hide internals services to match the paradigms deployed for IPv4. It is a PITA having IPv4-only management interfaces on some hardware.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Methanar posted:Does anyone run a dual stack network or even a fully native ipv6 network? Not yet, but I'm going to dual stack in Q3 of this year if all goes well. Only reason we're doing it is that our Director has a serious Hardon for Microsoft DA, and that won't work otherwise. DigitalMocking fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Jan 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Methanar posted:Does anyone run a dual stack network or even a fully native ipv6 network? Yes dual stack, no tangible benefits yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Yes dual stack, no tangible benefits yet. Same. I have maybe a half dozen customers who use v6.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Yes dual stack, no tangible benefits yet. Pretty much the same here, dual stack through Tunnelbroker at my home and office, customers that have native support from their ISPs get it as well but I won't run a tunnel for a customer unless they actually had a need for v6. The only real practical benefit at this point is I can access machines on my home network directly from work and vice versa with one simple firewall rule rather than a pile of port forwards, but I like being future-proof.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
We've been rolling it out slowly as customers refresh their networks. Many service providers don't offer v6 to residential customers yet (looking at you, Verizon), so I expect it'll remain of minimal use for another few years. Still, might as well put it in when you get the chance and get used to it instead of rushing to rolling it out 5 years from now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Is no one using microsoft DA?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
We're just getting IPv6 dual stack going now. Almost entirely so we can say we have IPv6. I don't expect a single customer to use it this year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
DigitalMocking posted:Is no one using microsoft DA? I used it at my old job but in server 2012 you didn't need IPv6, the DA server would handle 6to4
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Methanar posted:Does anyone run a dual stack network or even a fully native ipv6 network? We have a fully dual-stack network, the benefits include being the first customer to discover software bugs
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
wyoak posted:I used it at my old job but in server 2012 you didn't need IPv6, the DA server would handle 6to4 Interesting, they deployed DNS64 and NAT64 as part of the 2012 offering for DA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Y'all missed ipv6 test day and ipv6 launch day by several years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_IPv6_Day_and_World_IPv6_Launch_Day
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
At what point will I benefit with running it internally?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Moey posted:At what point will I benefit with running it internally? When there are IPv6-only services that are too tedious to access through a proxy, so almost never if you follow todays paradigm of operation. The real benefits are using public IPs for every host and scrapping NAT, see the usage cases for Windows DirectAccess. You would probably need a new generation of admins to start seeing this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:When there are IPv6-only services that are too tedious to access through a proxy, so almost never if you follow todays paradigm of operation. The real benefits are using public IPs for every host and scrapping NAT, see the usage cases for Windows DirectAccess. You would probably need a new generation of admins to start seeing this. Absolutely. VoIP would work a fuckton better if it were on ipv6 but a lot of the hardware and software that's out there today doesn't support it. Getting rid of NAT would fix a lot of protocol handling issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Absolutely. VoIP would work a fuckton better if it were on ipv6 but a lot of the hardware and software that's out there today doesn't support it. Getting rid of NAT would fix a lot of protocol handling issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:When there are IPv6-only services that are too tedious to access through a proxy, so almost never if you follow todays paradigm of operation. The real benefits are using public IPs for every host and scrapping NAT, see the usage cases for Windows DirectAccess. You would probably need a new generation of admins to start seeing this. Thanks, pretty much what I assumed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Cisco's VoIP more or less supports IPv6 , as in V6 only or dual stack, but, some of the applications still require either dual stack or v4 only last I checked (contact center). What will get you would be firewalling, proxies, and various other poo poo in the middle, but their implementation supports it anyways. To no point. We are dual stack and it basically lets you get to V6 resources if you need to, for applications that support it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
wolrah posted:My biggest gripe with Polycom is that they still don't seem to give a rat's rear end about IPv6. Way to be an industry leader, guys... It'd be so nice to be completely rid of NAT issues as even a possibility for customers with v6-capable ISPs. I've been bugging my rep about it intermittently for years now. Yep. We pretty much gave up on Polycom except for people who ask for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Which leaves who? Cisco? I hate their newer stuff because it feels really cheap compared to the 7962 range that I was spoiled with a while back. Thanks Ants fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jan 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Which leaves who? Cisco? Smaller companies like Audiocodes (used a SIP gateway of their's that was pretty nice) too
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Polycom, Avaya, Shoretel, and to some extent Panasonic, Siemens, Toshiba - depends what you're doing really. The veritable 7900 series of phones may be at their end as far as development is concerned as well, but their replacements (8800s really), are still shaking out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Yealink or bust. :v
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
FatCow posted:Yealink or bust. :v I miss the days of reinstalling the same firmware version to resolve weird issues with the phone locking up and lagging in menus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
FatCow posted:Yealink or bust. :v    They're cheap, not prone to vendor lock-in, have all the bells and whistles, sound good, and the company is responsive to bugs and feature requests. Good enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:
I have a T48 testing with a customer and a T46 on my desk right now, considering the price they're drat good and I'm sure unless there's a showstopper of some sort I'll be moving a lot more of them soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
wolrah posted:I have a T48 testing with a customer and a T46 on my desk right now, considering the price they're drat good and I'm sure unless there's a showstopper of some sort I'll be moving a lot more of them soon. Customers give them a funny look because all they see on TV is Cisco... which ironically sound like garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Customers give them a funny look because all they see on TV is Cisco... which ironically sound like garbage. Maybe it's because I've been working with the things for years so they stand out, but I see pretty much as many Polycoms on TV as Ciscos. I remember House and 24 had Ciscos everywhere, but Weeds and I think Californication had Polycoms. I just started watching Blunt Talk and they had Polycoms in the conference room (two linked IP7000s on a table that was barely large enough to need extension mics, much less linked bases, but still), not sure if they're anywhere else. I've seen Grandstreams once before as well, but never Yealink so far. I haven't used any of the wideband Ciscos, are they really that bad? We used 7940/60s everwhere when I started, but the terrible support for non-CUCM SIP in the 79x1s made us stop caring about Cisco and we've never looked back since.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 23:06
|
|