bergum@cim-tune.honeywell.com (Dave Bergum) (02/05/91)
Is anyone running 8.2(1)? Any serious problems?
I got some CSC/3 upgrade boards with 8.2 roms, but have not heard any
reports on performance/problems with 8.2 yet. Some one told me it
might be good to wait for the next maintenance upgrade.
A
-----/|\---------------------------------------+
- / | \ Bergum@CIM-VAX.Honeywell.COM |
- /__|__\ Dave Bergum [MN26-3190] |
- j---'---/ 2701 4-th Ave. S., Mpls, MN 55408 |
-~~~~~~~~~~ (612)870-5839 |
-----------------------------------------------+hayes@apple.com (02/05/91)
We are using 8.2(1) and are pretty happy. We are primarily an AppleTalk Phase II and TCP/IP shop, and only found one minor AppleTalk Phase II problem that will be corrected in 8.2(2) due out real-soon-now. Perhaps someone else could comment on XNS/Novell/Apollo/Banyan Vines? -Jim Hayes, Apple Computer, Inc.
asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan) (02/05/91)
8.2(3) is supposed to be coming out in approx 2 weeks or so to fix some problems with some of the odder/newer protocols (which ones I don't remember - I'm not running them - but they were not IP, XNS, or OSI). The IP support seems to be solid - we have been running 8.2(1) for about 3 weeks here with no problems, and ran it on an IGS/R that we had at the terminal room at Usenix in Dallas with no problems. --asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
long@nic.near.net (Daniel Long) (02/05/91)
From: Dave Bergum <bergum@cim-tune.honeywell.com> Subject: Status of 8.2(1) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 91 11:24:06 CST Is anyone running 8.2(1)? Any serious problems? I got some CSC/3 upgrade boards with 8.2 roms, but have not heard any reports on performance/problems with 8.2 yet. Some one told me it might be good to wait for the next maintenance upgrade. A -----/|\---------------------------------------+ - / | \ Bergum@CIM-VAX.Honeywell.COM | - /__|__\ Dave Bergum [MN26-3190] | - j---'---/ 2701 4-th Ave. S., Mpls, MN 55408 | -~~~~~~~~~~ (612)870-5839 | -----------------------------------------------+ Aside from the box crashing when you use the "shutdown" command, we haven't had any problems. Dan
louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) (02/05/91)
We've been having some Novell problems with 8.2(1), specifically with the Novell route-cache fast switching stuff that was just added. If you do Novell, I'd recommend waiting for the maintenance release. On the other hand, we've had absolutely no problems with IP at all. louie
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (02/05/91)
I've had a few crashes while configuring access list changes via the
network (a packet comes in while the access list data structures are in an
intermediate state); I don't know whether this is a new problem with 8.2,
but I don't think it ever hit me before.
I also had a few problems when I tried to use the new "established" option
to TCP extended access lists, but I haven't been able to reproduce them.
For normal operation as an IP and Appletalk router, it seems to be working
fine.
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmarbri@jake.tmc.edu (Brian Holmes) (02/05/91)
Is 8.2 shipping? Is it available for upgrades yet? -- PHONE: (313) 577-3750 FAX=577-5626 Wayne State University BITNET: bholmes@waynest1.bitnet 5925 Woodward INTERNET: bri@jake.cc.wayne.edu Detroit, MI 48202 U.S.A
RAF@CU.NIH.GOV (Roger Fajman) (02/06/91)
> We are using 8.2(1) and are pretty happy. We are primarily an > AppleTalk Phase II and TCP/IP shop, and only found one minor > AppleTalk Phase II problem that will be corrected in 8.2(2) due > out real-soon-now. I would appreciate hearing what that problem is, as we are about to try Appletalk routing.
RAF@CU.NIH.GOV (Roger Fajman) (02/06/91)
> Is anyone running 8.2(1)? Any serious problems? > > I got some CSC/3 upgrade boards with 8.2 roms, but have not heard any > reports on performance/problems with 8.2 yet. Some one told me it > might be good to wait for the next maintenance upgrade. We've had a problem with XNS RIP not properly recognizing that serial lines are down. The route still exists in the routing table as directly connected, although SHOW INTERFACE correctly says the line is down. This probably also exists in 8.1. cisco thinks that they have a fix. There's also the need to disable XNS fast switching to prevent the router from crashing periodically. This is supposed to be fixed in the next maintenance update. So, yes, if you don't need 8.2 features right away, it's a good idea to wait a while. But we are using 8.2(1) on a number of routers and it fixed some 8.1 problems and added some features that were important to us. Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 1246 National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF@NIHCU Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: RAF@CU.NIH.GOV
ralls@cisco.com (02/08/91)
>We've had a problem with XNS RIP not properly recognizing that serial >lines are down. The route still exists in the routing table as >directly connected, although SHOW INTERFACE correctly says the line is >down. This probably also exists in 8.1. cisco thinks that they have a >fix. I don't know of any such problem. There *was* a problem (only in 8.2) where if a directly connected network went down and the route was deleted, when that directly connected network came back the entry in the routing table would be incorrect. This could be repaired by removing then adding the network i.e. "no xns net <n>" , "xns net <n>". This would only happen if a directly connected network was down long enough to be deleted. The directly connected routes age out just like other routes so it takes a few minutes for them to be removed. (This is differant from 8.1 where directly connected routes were not removed at all.) If this is not the problem you are refering to please let me know because I will need to look into it. Vicki Ralls cisco Engineering
msmith@crc.ac.uk (Mike Smith x3297) (02/20/91)
I'm not sure if this is an 8.2(1) problem or if it is a hangover of an older one. We've just taken delivery of an AGS which we intend to use as an X25 switch as well as an IP router. Since we're in the UK on the Janet network we use X25 services a lot. The Coloured Books software which Janet runs uses the X25 Fast select feature when initiating connections. Unfortunately the cisco seems to map the Fast select request to a Reverse charge request when switching X25. The receiving end refuses the reverse charge and so the call fails. Is anyone out there using a cisco router for X25 switching with Fast select requests? Are you having any problems? Do you have any advice? Mike -- Mike Smith Computing Services Janet: m.smith@uk.ac.crc Clinical Research Centre, Usenet: m.smith@mrccrc.uucp Watford Rd, HARROW, Middx, HA1 3UJ or ...!mcsun!ukc!mrccrc!m.smith Tel 081-869 3297 Internet: m.smith%uk.ac.crc@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk