Re: If I didn't sepceify the ip ssh version , what would be the

From: Pavlo Bykov (slidersv@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 04 2008 - 20:40:04 ART

• Next message: Sean C: "RE: If I didn't sepceify the ip ssh version , what would be the"
• Previous message: yungli2008@gmail.com: "frame-relay de-list"
• Maybe in reply to: ccie: "If I didn't sepceify the ip ssh version , what would be the"
• Next in thread: Sean C: "RE: If I didn't sepceify the ip ssh version , what would be the"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

IOS output:

---
Generating RSA keys ...
[OK]
R1(config)#
00:07:12: %SSH-5-ENABLED: SSH 1.99 has been enabled
---
It's 1.99 in quite recent 12.2(25)S15. I remember seeing 1.99 being default
in documentation as well.
P.S. SSHv1.99 means v2 with v1 fallback enabled.
Regards,
Pavel Bykov
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:07 PM, ccie <ccie@just-horizon.com> wrote:
> Hi experts,
>
> If I didn't sepceify the ip ssh version , what would be the default
> version?
>
> Regards,
>
> Amin
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

• Next message: Sean C: "RE: If I didn't sepceify the ip ssh version , what would be the"
• Previous message: yungli2008@gmail.com: "frame-relay de-list"
• Maybe in reply to: ccie: "If I didn't sepceify the ip ssh version , what would be the"
• Next in thread: Sean C: "RE: If I didn't sepceify the ip ssh version , what would be the"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:53 ART