Re: OT: Switch up time...4 years!

  I like the ISRs. All the models. I agree they are pretty solid. I'm
very hesitant about adding security or application modules. It's a
personal preferences. separation of duties and whatnot. So I can't
really speak on how well they work with a lot of extra functionality
layered in.

PS: And a 28xx with a 3G card and a switch module makes for a great
mobile office. Way to easy to deploy.

--Hammer--

On 9/19/2010 4:34 AM, GAURAV MADAN wrote:
> 11 yrs is very very impressive ..
>
> Hammer ,
> How would you rank the ISRs ( 28xx , 38xx ) .. I find them solid as well :)
>
> Gaurav Madan
> CCIE # 23863
>
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 3:38 AM, --Hammer--<bhmccie_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> 11 years is pretty impressive. The kicker is that back then (11.x) the IOS
>> was solid enough to support those kinds of uptimes. I don't have a single
>> piece of Cisco gear that doesn't have a bug or two that has warranted an
>> upgrade. The farther you get from the traditional routing and switching
>> gear, the worse it gets. My 7206s are pretty solid. Running OSPF/BGP/etc.
>>
>> FWSMs - a few bugs and vulnerabilities
>> ACEs - Bleh. Storm-O-bugs
>> WAAS - Bleh. Storm-O-bugs
>> ASAs - a few bugs
>> 6509s - bugs
>> 3560s/3750s/4948s - pretty solid
>> 7207s - pretty solid
>>
>> I miss the good old days.....
>>
>> --Hammer--
>>
>>
>> On 9/18/2010 4:06 PM, Robert Hosford wrote:
>>> I don't see code that old because the Y2K. But when you're a switch does
>>> it matter?
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Robert Hosford
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 3:14 PM
>>> To: Gary Duncanson; Martin Hogan
>>> Cc: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>>> Subject: RE: OT: Switch up time...4 years!
>>>
>>> A 3.12 server no doubt. A switch up that long and never patched I bet.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Gary Duncanson
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 3:04 PM
>>> To: Martin Hogan
>>> Cc: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>>> Subject: Re: OT: Switch up time...4 years!
>>>
>>> Beaten by a Novell server somewhere no doubt. Still impressive though!
>>>
>>> Gary CNE
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Martin Hogan"<martin.john.hogan_at_gmail.com>
>>> To:<ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 10:33 AM
>>> Subject: Re: OT: Switch up time...4 years!
>>>
>>>
>>>> Without intentionally being a "topper" - here is one a colleague found
>>>> recently:
>>>>
>>>> XXXXXXXXXXX#show ver
>>>> Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
>>>> IOS (tm) 2500 Software (C2500-IS-L), Version 11.2(14), RELEASE SOFTWARE
>>>> (fc1)
>>>> Copyright (c) 1986-1998 by cisco Systems, Inc.
>>>> Compiled Mon 18-May-98 12:43 by tlane
>>>> Image text-base: 0x0302F4E4, data-base: 0x00001000
>>>> ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 5.2(5), RELEASE SOFTWARE
>>>> BOOTFLASH: 3000 Bootstrap Software (IGS-RXBOOT), Version 10.2(5), RELEASE
>>>> SOFTWARE (fc1)
>>>> XXXXXXXXX uptime is *11 years, 1 week, 4 days, 3 hours, 50 minutes
>>>> *System restarted by power-on at 12:06:58 UTC Mon Jul 12 1999
>>>> System image file is "flash:c2500-is-l_112-14.bin", booted via flash
>>>> cisco 2500 (68030) processor (revision L) with 2048K/2048K bytes of
>>>> memory.
>>>> Processor board ID 01880349, with hardware revision 00000000
>>>> Bridging software.
>>>> X.25 software, Version 2.0, NET2, BFE and GOSIP compliant.
>>>> 2 Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 interface(s)
>>>> 2 Serial network interface(s)
>>>> 32K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory.
>>>> 8192K bytes of processor board System flash (Read ONLY)
>>>> Configuration register is 0x2102
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was a good effort.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Dale Shaw<dale.shaw_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Brad Ellis<brad_at_ccbootcamp.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> C3548XL-COLO-INET uptime is 4 years, 30 weeks, 4 days, 2 hours, 12
>>>>>>> minutes
>>>>>>> System returned to ROM by reload
>>>>>>> System restarted at 17:43:37 PST Thu Feb 16 2006
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:58 PM, GAURAV MADAN<gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Thats the quality Cisco delivers !
>>>>> Hmm.. 3500XL. it's probably more that the operators are afraid to type
>>>>> any commands into it, in case it decides to do something weird and
>>>>> unexplainable, requiring a reload. That's probably what happened last
>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> Dale
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon Sep 20 2010 - 08:21:47 ART