For those saying Cisco is so great, it's still fucked up pretty bad. IOS 12.1 and later doesn't allow an MTU > 1460 on L2TP, while 12.0.7(T) works fine with a 1492 MTU that my PPPoE customers expect. Every rev I've tried from 12.0 and up has problems with CEF when using ISL VLAN sub-interfaces, and without CEF, mac-accounting is screwed up. Now if they charged 1/5th of what they do, I'd say you're getting reasonable value for your dollar... Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc.
For those saying Cisco is so great, it's still fucked up pretty bad. IOS 12.1 and later doesn't allow an MTU > 1460 on L2TP, while 12.0.7(T) works fine with a 1492 MTU that my PPPoE customers expect. Every rev I've tried from 12.0 and up has problems with CEF when using ISL VLAN sub-interfaces, and without CEF, mac-accounting is screwed up.
Now if they charged 1/5th of what they do, I'd say you're getting reasonable value for your dollar...
I believe this is an operational issue list and not a flame / bash Cisco list. Instead of looking at the glass half full, look at it as half empty and look at how far IOS has come in the past two years. Sure they have some bugs and shortcomings, but if you think anyone else out there is any better at this game, drop Cisco and go with them. Or maybe the best thing to do is keep pushing your TAC case until they resolve the problem and relate your problems to open cases on the bug tracker. IMHO if you look at IOS as a whole and compare the good with the bad, it's hardly "fucked up pretty bad". -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor@inoc.net Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? [ OK ]
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:08:08AM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
For those saying Cisco is so great, it's still fucked up pretty bad. IOS 12.1 and later doesn't allow an MTU > 1460 on L2TP, while 12.0.7(T) works fine with a 1492 MTU that my PPPoE customers expect. Every rev I've tried from 12.0 and up has problems with CEF when using ISL VLAN sub-interfaces, and without CEF, mac-accounting is screwed up.
If thats the worst Cisco bug you've got, you are the luckiest man on the face of the earth. Everyone has bugs, but Cisco has better excuses to go along with them. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 01:08:08AM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
For those saying Cisco is so great, it's still fucked up pretty bad. IOS 12.1 and later doesn't allow an MTU > 1460 on L2TP, while 12.0.7(T) works fine with a 1492 MTU that my PPPoE customers expect.
...
If thats the worst Cisco bug you've got, you are the luckiest man on the face of the earth. Everyone has bugs, but Cisco has better excuses to go along with them. :)
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/471/l2tp_mtu_tuning.html - Mark
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
For those saying Cisco is so great, it's still fucked up pretty bad. IOS 12.1 and later doesn't allow an MTU > 1460 on L2TP, while 12.0.7(T) works fine with a 1492 MTU that my PPPoE customers expect. Every rev I've tried from 12.0 and up has problems with CEF when using ISL VLAN sub-interfaces, and without CEF, mac-accounting is screwed up.
If C brand worked properly as shipped how would Cisco support services and other consultancys survive? It's a MUCH bigger market in consulting services and Rent-a-Expert than the initial hardware/firmware sales. If Cisco shipped mostly working product then thousands of high paying jobs would be lost and probably a billion or more support dollars would never make the rounds in the economy. Microsoft and Cisco do the tech industry a HUGE favor by shipping misfunctional equipment/software to which consulting services and professional services can then step in and hawk their wares/bodys/solutions. If Cisco and Microsoft shipped properly working product the tech industry/economy would probably disintegrate! Once you understand the above, the technical industry starts to make a little more sense; its consulting and professional support services that drive the economy and not properly functioning gear! -Rob
Rob Wrote: If C brand worked properly as shipped how would Cisco support services and other consultancys survive? It's a MUCH bigger market in consulting services and Rent-a-Expert than the initial hardware/firmware sales. If Cisco shipped mostly working product then thousands of high paying jobs would be lost and probably a billion or more support dollars would never make the rounds in the economy. Microsoft and Cisco do the tech industry a HUGE favor by shipping misfunctional equipment/software to which consulting services and professional services can then step in and hawk their wares/bodys/solutions. If Cisco and Microsoft shipped properly working product the tech industry/economy would probably disintegrate! Once you understand the above, the technical industry starts to make a little more sense; its consulting and professional support services that drive the economy and not properly functioning gear! -Rob Indulge me in an analogy: Let's say I own a bakery. Some punk throws a rock through my window. Well, now I have to either pay someone to fix the window, leave it the way it is or try to repair it myself. Since I don't know anything about windows, and I really can't just leave it, I have to pay someone to fix it. According to Rob's school of thought, the economy has been given a boost (albeit a very minor one) because I have temporarily employed a window repair man. Sounds logical at first. Look at the slippery slope: Wouldn't it be great for the economy if everyone went around breaking windows? Of course not, because people have better things to be spending their money on than window repair. There is no return on investment for fixing a window. The point is, if so much money is being spent on support costs, it's actually a DRAIN on the economy because the money being spent on support would likely be more productive and spent more wisely by the companies that are now wasting money because of inferior hardware/software. That productivity could result in lower consumer prices which means you'd keep more of your own money. It means more money could be invested into new products and services which would in turn create more jobs and more than make up for the support jobs that would be lost by hardware/software that needed very little support. If those of us that provide support for a living weren't doing that would we be just sitting at home? Probably not. If we were not supporting, we would likely be innovating or in a different industry that was more productive because they weren't paying so stinking much to support their hardware/software. Rob says that Microsoft and Cisco are doing the tech industry a favor but they are not; they are only doing themselves a favor. This applies especially to Microsoft because people wait breathlessly for the next patch or upgrade and then act as if M$ is doing them a favor by fixing something that shouldn't have been broken to begin with. Larry Diffey - Armchair Economist
Indulge me in an analogy: Let's say I own a bakery. Some punk throws a rock through my window. Well, now I have to either pay someone to fix
Larry Diffey - Armchair Economist
With apologies to Bastiat and Hazlitt? :) Bradley
Thus spake "Rob Healey" <rhealey@onvoy.com>
If C brand worked properly as shipped how would Cisco support services and other consultancys survive?
It's a MUCH bigger market in consulting services and Rent-a-Expert than the initial hardware/firmware sales.
According to Cisco's last financial results call, services account for 17% of revenue. That's not quite a rounding error, but to say Cisco intentionally ships bad hw/sw to collect on services (or for others to do so) is way off the mark. There are lots of services still necessary even when the sw/hw works as advertised. Training, Planning, Design, Implementation, Operations, etc. just like any other industry. Needing an architect and civil engineer to build a skyscraper isn't a fault of the steel mill. S
participants (8)
-
Bradley Dunn -
Larry Diffey -
Ralph Doncaster -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Rob Healey -
Robert Blayzor -
Stephen Sprunk -
W. Mark Townsley