nanog mailing list archives
Re: Patching for Cisco vulnerability
From: Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:21:28 +0200
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 03:04:45PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
most providers can easily go from (for example) 12.0(21)S3 to 12.0(21)S7 with less testing than from 12.0(21)S to 12.0(25)S
12.0(21)S* (at least S5 and above) have broken SNMP interface counters and Cisco refuses to fix the bug in 12.0(21)S*, so people who don't want to lose money (accounting) are forced to upgrade to 12.0(25)S*. I guess they want to force all "conservative" ISPs to jump over the 12.0(22)S "barrier". Some things won't be forgotten (see also recent discussion about the new non-"Cisco"-GBIC blocking). Voting with pockets takes place. Regards, Daniel
Current thread:
- Patching for Cisco vulnerability Irwin Lazar (Jul 18)
- RE: Patching for Cisco vulnerability Bob German (Jul 18)
- Re: Patching for Cisco vulnerability Jared Mauch (Jul 18)
- Re: Patching for Cisco vulnerability Daniel Roesen (Jul 18)
- Re: Patching for Cisco vulnerability Jared Mauch (Jul 18)
- Re: Patching for Cisco vulnerability Daniel Roesen (Jul 18)
- Re: Patching for Cisco vulnerability Larry Rosenman (Jul 18)
- Re: Patching for Cisco vulnerability Petri Helenius (Jul 18)
- Re: Patching for Cisco vulnerability Daniel Roesen (Jul 18)
- Re: Patching for Cisco vulnerability Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 18)
- Re: Patching for Cisco vulnerability Jason Frisvold (Jul 18)
- Re: Infrastructure Filtering (was Re: Patching for Cisco vulnerability) Petri Helenius (Jul 18)