That would be awesome! I just got a Linksys 802.11G AP, and if it was replaced with Cisco hardware, I'd be one happy guy.
As of right now, Cisco does not have any 802.11g radios, so rest assured you're not getting Cisco-branded replacements at this point.
Cisco was slow getting 802.11a radios out the door, obviously it's going to be the same with 802.11g.
Both the Cisco AP1200s and the Cisco AP1100s will be field-upgradable to 802.11g -- the 1200s will be able to run 802.11g and 802.11a radio simultaneously to service all 802.11 clients (802.11, 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11a).
I thought Asterisk could handle the call switching itself? Is this not the case?
Sure, it can. I'm not interested in using it for that, for a number of reasons.
Asterisk seems geared towards leveraging Linejack and Phonejack, which would mean additional investment and usage of plain old analog phones. (Most) analog phones lack the "oh cool" factor of a Cisco 7960G IP Phone, which I already owned. This was just my take--I don't really know for sure. I'm much more comfortable with Cisco gear than Asterisk.
The only negative to Asterisk is that you need a plugin to support H.323; it's not supported out of the gate. I used asterisk-oh323, which I found on Freshmeat (after a LOT of searching on Google).
Keep in mind that the Lucent Partner II requires switchhook action to transfer calls, and answer a second line. Using an IP phone might make that a bit difficult.
I am bumping in to this right now at home. I have local service from Southwestern Bell, which I terminate in a VIC-2FXO in my Cisco 1750. I am using Cisco's IOS Telephony Services to switch calls to a handful of Cisco IP phones. Of course, I have Call Waiting.
My Call Waiting beeps, and I have no way to send a hookflash to the PSTN from an IP Phone.
I was informed that a softkey with the ability to "send hookflash" will be coming to ITS around February of 2003. This will meet my needs, and people in situations as you describe. (assuming they are using ITS)
In Cisco IOS, Hookflash Relay does operate propely in an FXS-to-FXO setup; so it works from my cordless phone (hanging off of a VIC-2FXS).
Cisco's 7920 Wireless IP phone will be coming out end of 1QCY2003, but out of the gate will only be supported in a Cisco CallManager environment. The Product Manager did a presentation a few weeks back here in STL, and the plans they have for the product are pretty neat (again, assuming you are in a CCM environment).
I plan on using them with Asterisk [asteriskpbx.com] and my 802.11 access point.
I'm using Asterisk at home as my IVR & Voicemail System, with Cisco's IOS Telephony Services (ITS) handling the actual call switching. ITS can scale up to 48 phones depending on the Cisco router platform you have. I'd actually prefer to us Cisco's Unity product as my IVR & Voicemail--but frankly, I'm too cheap to introduce that at home. Asterisk is, as you know, zero cost.
All 3 servers are in the same netblock, and this suggests maybe even the same physical location.
That doesn't appear to be the case. All three of the IP addresses you listed are in separate/24 netblocks. A traceroute to each reveals a different path for me (UUNet vs SprintLink vs Qwest).
Some of your other points appear to be quite valid, though.
I do not believe Cisco does, or ever has, positioned LRE as a "last-mile" technology. LRE is more about leveraging existing cabling infrastucture in a multi-unit facilities such as hotels and hospitals.
Cisco's LRE product offering requires two pieces:
1. An LRE-capable switch at the head-end (such as a 2900XL LRE), which terminates the LRE and has a standard Ethernet handoff to your normal data equipment. In an intergrated voice/data setup (where you're reusing existing voice cabling to carry voice AND data) you would then use their LRE 48 POTS Splitter at the head-end and hand off to the PBX before bringing everything in to the 2900XL LRE.
2. Cisco 575 CPE, which uplinks to the head-end and splits off the voice and the data. Very similar to Cisco's 600 series.
Sound like DSL? It essentially is, just on a smaller scale (3500XL/2900XL LRE costs a whole hell of a lot less then a carrier-class DSLAM). In fact, scanning over the Cisco 575 CPE Overview, Cisco declares the technology to be "based on VDSL".
Draw your own conclusions, but I have never heard this positioned as a last-mile replacement. The article never seems to hint at it either, but simply reiterate their marketing the product line for multi-tenant facilities.
Yes, and some VPN's include features in order to get around NAT devices typically installed on home networks. For example, Cisco's VPN can communicate on the standard IPSec IP protocol, or if you're behind a NAT device, you turn on UDP encapsulation and all of your packets go from UDP port 10000 and to UDP port 10000.
And to make it even harder to track "VPNing" users,
The new Cisco VPN Client 3.5 has included a feature which allows you to wrap your IPSec packets in TCP (as opposed to their UDP approach that you outlined above). This is even better when you have a strict firewall that only permits certain TCP & UDP port numbers outbound.
Other then what could be considered an "unsual amount of traffic" (hrm, 56MB of data transferred during that single HTTP session?!) unless you were digging through the actual packets it sure would be tough to know.
I implement[ed] ORBS for my personal email account (rather than server-wide) and blocked 1563 "spams" from November 2000 through May 2001. 4 of those were legitimate emails.
"Noticable" is objective, but for me, the ORBS was cherished because that was a huge chunk of my inbound email.
You got free advertising thanks to posting on slashdot and the momentary insanity of a few moderators who didnt quite realize what you were doing. Kudos to you for screwing the system
I posted a story a few weeks ago about an auction I found on Ebay, and everyone accused ME of being the seller and trying to rack up free advertising. That wasn't the case at all.
Everytime someone posts on here, it's not an advertisement, "nor are they necessarily screwing the system". The cynacism of this forum frightens me.
You know, this whole idea sucked really bad the first time when it was called a POWER GLOVE.
Liar! The Wizard, the 90-minute Nintendo commercial which I believe was the first real advertisement of the Power Glove, continues to be one of my greatest childhood memories.
Don't have to get him on ebay. He's being reissued.
100% original? I thought there were now laws in the US regarding guns having to be neon orange to avoid the kids-getting-shot-by-cops problems that we've all heard about over the years.
I submitted the story, so obviously I am a huge Transformers fan. Let us not forget other Transformers-related outlets available:
Transformers: The Movie - Yes, the original with tons of great voice actors--Judd Nelso, Leonard Nimoy, Orson Wells, Robert Stack, Peter Cullen. (and the DVD just came out a few weeks ago!)
Transformers MUSHes - Roleplay as your favorite Transformers with loads of other people. There's a whole lot more then just these two.
Transfans - Probably the biggest organized Transformers club
Botcon - The biggest and best Transformers convention. I went in 95 and 97--great toys, movies, people, and artwork.
I've got some old and definitely useful cisco hardware, and it still works even though I don't have the source code. It just runs the last IOS update for that hardware, 11.0. The CPU is a 12 MHz 80386,
I'm racking my brain here, what Cisco equipment uses a 386? I know some of the more off-the-wall stuff like Localdirector, Cache Engine, etc. run on Intel gear, but I'm not aware of any IOS-based routers that do.
I recently wrote up a file transfer procedure for NT systems that uses a Win32 command line program to transfer the file to a UNIX system. When I said "command line", I got the same reaction as if I had said "radioactive waste". And you want these people to use UNIX?
Usually, the people who make the decisions/mandates are the people signing the checks.
While I don't work in the Systems group of my company's IT Department, I can tell you this based on recent discussion with my boss: We just got socked by the Microsoft Licensing Fairy due to misrepresentation on how SQL CALs work in conjunction with IIS, and my boss (who oversees the IT Department as well as other operational groups) is not pleased. I believe "Taxation without representation" were his exact words. And while I doubt a change will happen anytime soon, he wants to start evaluating other alternatives. And as I hinted at earlier, he's the guy who ultimately spends the money and makes the call on what we do.
The biggest fees are in the CALs, anyway. Take for example, our batch of MS SQL Server 7s. It's a piddly couple of grand for the server and the software, but it's the $90/user (times 1400 employees, in our case) where they get you. Heck, leave the frontend the same. Let the users have their NT4. But I'm all for at least evaluating the alternatives (Linux, *BSD, SAMBA, MySQL, Apache) in the Enterprise. And the bosses.. the guys who sign the checks and ultimately make the decisions.. are starting to think the same thing.
There's no longer support for more than 2 IDE channels on a motherboard and no IRQ sharing for onboard IDE controllers. So few of us actually have 4 onboard channels and multiple IDE drives that it was bound to end sooner or later. It looks like off board controllers are now mandatory for IDE RAID.
This whole comment seems mildly misleading.
Without having yet touched 2.4, I am VERY familiar with the 0.90 raid code that is finally in the mainstream kernel.
Simply because the Linux kernel won't support more then 2 "onboard" IDE channels (which I cannot speak to, but that sounds mildly unbelievable) wouldn't mean you could not employ a setup that utilizes RAID.
Under your set of restrictions, perhaps you could not have an [efficient] RAID5 (two channels, one drive per channel)--but there are other blends of RAID (0 and 1) that would be supported even if the two-onboard-IDE-channels restriction turned out to be true.
The current processor designs are reaching their limits in terms of speed and won't be able to go much faster than where they are now.
Not being an EE of any sort, let me ask this: Haven't they been saying this for years? (and not just about chips, I remember when 9600 baud was supposedly _the limit_ for modems) Don't you think they'll just keep stretching it out farther and farther?
Re:900Mhz / 2.4Ghz IP networks and security.
on
Open Networking
·
· Score: 1
So, can you (or anyone) just arbitrarily sniff on an unencrypted RF network without knowing anything about the network (like the SSID, for instance)? If so, how?
Yes.
I have a home 2.4GHz wireless network. I live in a fairly large (416 unit) apartment in downtown Saint Louis.
Every time the linux-wlan package starts, it lists all the other wireless networks it can see. When I first set the package up, I noticed on Channel 6 that there was an SSID listed named "dave". Low and behold, configure anything on my network to SSID "dave" and I have full access to this guy's network. He lives downstairs somewhere, from what I can tell.
Now, granted, I'm not trying to break in to this guy's network. I'm just saying that for a total of a $115 investment (Pentium 166 I obtained for free + Zoomair 2.4GHz card) I am able to see what 2.4GHz wireless networks are within my reach. If I had a laptop with Linux, I can roam around and find out even more I'm sure.
Go easy on him, it sounds like he submitted this a week or so ago since he said "October is almost over" when in my neck of the woods it is already November 4th.
Now even more businessmen can stuff this one in their portfolio and naïvely proclaim that they invest in Linux. And the whole time they'll be using nothing but Windoze. Anyone else see the problem here?
I don't agree with that.
I own a decent amount of stock in an IT Professional Services company, but I'd be darned if I'd ever pay another company to do services for my company. I'm a do-it-yourself kind of guy.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be awesome! I just got a Linksys 802.11G AP, and if it was replaced with Cisco hardware, I'd be one happy guy.
As of right now, Cisco does not have any 802.11g radios, so rest assured you're not getting Cisco-branded replacements at this point.
Cisco was slow getting 802.11a radios out the door, obviously it's going to be the same with 802.11g.
Both the Cisco AP1200s and the Cisco AP1100s will be field-upgradable to 802.11g -- the 1200s will be able to run 802.11g and 802.11a radio simultaneously to service all 802.11 clients (802.11, 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11a).
I thought Asterisk could handle the call switching itself? Is this not the case?
Sure, it can. I'm not interested in using it for that, for a number of reasons.
Asterisk seems geared towards leveraging Linejack and Phonejack, which would mean additional investment and usage of plain old analog phones. (Most) analog phones lack the "oh cool" factor of a Cisco 7960G IP Phone, which I already owned. This was just my take--I don't really know for sure. I'm much more comfortable with Cisco gear than Asterisk.
The only negative to Asterisk is that you need a plugin to support H.323; it's not supported out of the gate. I used asterisk-oh323, which I found on Freshmeat (after a LOT of searching on Google).
Keep in mind that the Lucent Partner II requires switchhook action to transfer calls, and answer a second line. Using an IP phone might make that a bit difficult.
I am bumping in to this right now at home. I have local service from Southwestern Bell, which I terminate in a VIC-2FXO in my Cisco 1750. I am using Cisco's IOS Telephony Services to switch calls to a handful of Cisco IP phones. Of course, I have Call Waiting.
My Call Waiting beeps, and I have no way to send a hookflash to the PSTN from an IP Phone.
I was informed that a softkey with the ability to "send hookflash" will be coming to ITS around February of 2003. This will meet my needs, and people in situations as you describe. (assuming they are using ITS)
In Cisco IOS, Hookflash Relay does operate propely in an FXS-to-FXO setup; so it works from my cordless phone (hanging off of a VIC-2FXS).
Anyone know where I can get some 802.11 cordless phones? The only ones I can find are made by Symbol, but I know there has to be more out there.
In addition to Symbol (as you mentioned), Spectralink makes 802.11b wireless IP phones as well.
Cisco's 7920 Wireless IP phone will be coming out end of 1QCY2003, but out of the gate will only be supported in a Cisco CallManager environment. The Product Manager did a presentation a few weeks back here in STL, and the plans they have for the product are pretty neat (again, assuming you are in a CCM environment).
I plan on using them with Asterisk [asteriskpbx.com] and my 802.11 access point.
I'm using Asterisk at home as my IVR & Voicemail System, with Cisco's IOS Telephony Services (ITS) handling the actual call switching. ITS can scale up to 48 phones depending on the Cisco router platform you have. I'd actually prefer to us Cisco's Unity product as my IVR & Voicemail--but frankly, I'm too cheap to introduce that at home. Asterisk is, as you know, zero cost.
I like zero cost.
Still under 4000 CCIE's worldwide.
Only 2 places in North America to take it, RTP in N. Carolina, and I believe in San Jose.
I appreciate your respect for the program, but:
As of the Worldwide CCIE Presence:
Total of Worldwide CCIEs: 7598*
As of April 30, 2002
As for North American sites, you're right. Cisco is closing the Halifax, NS, Canada Lab
All 3 servers are in the same netblock, and this suggests maybe even the same physical location.
/24 netblocks. A traceroute to each reveals a different path for me (UUNet vs SprintLink vs Qwest).
That doesn't appear to be the case. All three of the IP addresses you listed are in separate
Some of your other points appear to be quite valid, though.
(Reminder to Apple users: visit Slashdot's Apple section for more Apple-related news.)
This is the second time this has appeared in a headline in the last 2 days. I'm curious what this is all about?
Anyone know?
I do not believe Cisco does, or ever has, positioned LRE as a "last-mile" technology. LRE is more about leveraging existing cabling infrastucture in a multi-unit facilities such as hotels and hospitals.
Cisco's LRE product offering requires two pieces:
1. An LRE-capable switch at the head-end (such as a 2900XL LRE), which terminates the LRE and has a standard Ethernet handoff to your normal data equipment. In an intergrated voice/data setup (where you're reusing existing voice cabling to carry voice AND data) you would then use their LRE 48 POTS Splitter at the head-end and hand off to the PBX before bringing everything in to the 2900XL LRE.
2. Cisco 575 CPE, which uplinks to the head-end and splits off the voice and the data. Very similar to Cisco's 600 series.
Sound like DSL? It essentially is, just on a smaller scale (3500XL/2900XL LRE costs a whole hell of a lot less then a carrier-class DSLAM). In fact, scanning over the Cisco 575 CPE Overview, Cisco declares the technology to be "based on VDSL".
Draw your own conclusions, but I have never heard this positioned as a last-mile replacement. The article never seems to hint at it either, but simply reiterate their marketing the product line for multi-tenant facilities.
Yes, and some VPN's include features in order to get around NAT devices typically installed on home networks. For example, Cisco's VPN can communicate on the standard IPSec IP protocol, or if you're behind a NAT device, you turn on UDP encapsulation and all of your packets go from UDP port 10000 and to UDP port 10000.
And to make it even harder to track "VPNing" users,
The new Cisco VPN Client 3.5 has included a feature which allows you to wrap your IPSec packets in TCP (as opposed to their UDP approach that you outlined above). This is even better when you have a strict firewall that only permits certain TCP & UDP port numbers outbound.
Other then what could be considered an "unsual amount of traffic" (hrm, 56MB of data transferred during that single HTTP session?!) unless you were digging through the actual packets it sure would be tough to know.
maybe it was Mr.Knipfer? :)
The last thing we need on here is a Knipferspot.
My money is on Doogles.
Sorry, I was busy working all day. I'd put $50 on it being Lance.
SPAM hasn't been reduced to any noticable degree.
I implement[ed] ORBS for my personal email account (rather than server-wide) and blocked 1563 "spams" from November 2000 through May 2001. 4 of those were legitimate emails.
"Noticable" is objective, but for me, the ORBS was cherished because that was a huge chunk of my inbound email.
#! /bin/sh
echo "calculating dependencies"
echo "creating compression libraries"
echo "loading compression libraries"
echo "#### done(1)."
echo "#### done(2)."
echo "#### done(3)."
echo "#### done(4)."
echo "#### done(5)."
echo "#### done(6)."
echo "#### done(7)."
echo "#### done(8)."
echo "#### done(9)."
echo "linking...done."
echo "installation complete."
April Fools perhaps? It doesn't do a thing?
You got free advertising thanks to posting on slashdot and the momentary insanity of a few moderators who didnt quite realize what you were doing. Kudos to you for screwing the system
I posted a story a few weeks ago about an auction I found on Ebay, and everyone accused ME of being the seller and trying to rack up free advertising. That wasn't the case at all.
Everytime someone posts on here, it's not an advertisement, "nor are they necessarily screwing the system". The cynacism of this forum frightens me.
You know, this whole idea sucked really bad the first time when it was called a POWER GLOVE.
Liar! The Wizard, the 90-minute Nintendo commercial which I believe was the first real advertisement of the Power Glove, continues to be one of my greatest childhood memories.
THE POWER GLOVE!
Don't have to get him on ebay. He's being reissued.
100% original? I thought there were now laws in the US regarding guns having to be neon orange to avoid the kids-getting-shot-by-cops problems that we've all heard about over the years.
Just curious, not questioning you at all.
- Transformers: The Movie - Yes, the original with tons of great voice actors--Judd Nelso, Leonard Nimoy, Orson Wells, Robert Stack, Peter Cullen. (and the DVD just came out a few weeks ago!)
- Transformers MUSHes - Roleplay as your favorite Transformers with loads of other people. There's a whole lot more then just these two.
- Transfans - Probably the biggest organized Transformers club
- Botcon - The biggest and best Transformers convention. I went in 95 and 97--great toys, movies, people, and artwork.
Have fun getting your Transformers fix.I've got some old and definitely useful cisco hardware, and it still works even though I don't have the source code. It just runs the last IOS update for that hardware, 11.0. The CPU is a 12 MHz 80386,
I'm racking my brain here, what Cisco equipment uses a 386? I know some of the more off-the-wall stuff like Localdirector, Cache Engine, etc. run on Intel gear, but I'm not aware of any IOS-based routers that do.
I recently wrote up a file transfer procedure for NT systems that uses a Win32 command line program to transfer the file to a UNIX system. When I said "command line", I got the same reaction as if I had said "radioactive waste". And you want these people to use UNIX?
.. the guys who sign the checks and ultimately make the decisions .. are starting to think the same thing.
Usually, the people who make the decisions/mandates are the people signing the checks.
While I don't work in the Systems group of my company's IT Department, I can tell you this based on recent discussion with my boss: We just got socked by the Microsoft Licensing Fairy due to misrepresentation on how SQL CALs work in conjunction with IIS, and my boss (who oversees the IT Department as well as other operational groups) is not pleased. I believe "Taxation without representation" were his exact words. And while I doubt a change will happen anytime soon, he wants to start evaluating other alternatives. And as I hinted at earlier, he's the guy who ultimately spends the money and makes the call on what we do.
The biggest fees are in the CALs, anyway. Take for example, our batch of MS SQL Server 7s. It's a piddly couple of grand for the server and the software, but it's the $90/user (times 1400 employees, in our case) where they get you. Heck, leave the frontend the same. Let the users have their NT4. But I'm all for at least evaluating the alternatives (Linux, *BSD, SAMBA, MySQL, Apache) in the Enterprise. And the bosses
There's no longer support for more than 2 IDE channels on a motherboard and no IRQ sharing for onboard IDE controllers. So few of us actually have 4 onboard channels and multiple IDE drives that it was bound to end sooner or later. It looks like off board controllers are now mandatory for IDE RAID.
This whole comment seems mildly misleading.
Without having yet touched 2.4, I am VERY familiar with the 0.90 raid code that is finally in the mainstream kernel.
Simply because the Linux kernel won't support more then 2 "onboard" IDE channels (which I cannot speak to, but that sounds mildly unbelievable) wouldn't mean you could not employ a setup that utilizes RAID.
Under your set of restrictions, perhaps you could not have an [efficient] RAID5 (two channels, one drive per channel)--but there are other blends of RAID (0 and 1) that would be supported even if the two-onboard-IDE-channels restriction turned out to be true.
The current processor designs are reaching their limits in terms of speed and won't be able to go much faster than where they are now.
Not being an EE of any sort, let me ask this: Haven't they been saying this for years? (and not just about chips, I remember when 9600 baud was supposedly _the limit_ for modems) Don't you think they'll just keep stretching it out farther and farther?
So, can you (or anyone) just arbitrarily sniff on an unencrypted RF network without knowing anything about the network (like the SSID, for instance)? If so, how?
Yes.
I have a home 2.4GHz wireless network. I live in a fairly large (416 unit) apartment in downtown Saint Louis.
Every time the linux-wlan package starts, it lists all the other wireless networks it can see. When I first set the package up, I noticed on Channel 6 that there was an SSID listed named "dave". Low and behold, configure anything on my network to SSID "dave" and I have full access to this guy's network. He lives downstairs somewhere, from what I can tell.
Now, granted, I'm not trying to break in to this guy's network. I'm just saying that for a total of a $115 investment (Pentium 166 I obtained for free + Zoomair 2.4GHz card) I am able to see what 2.4GHz wireless networks are within my reach. If I had a laptop with Linux, I can roam around and find out even more I'm sure.
802.11 is too damned expensive.
Define too expensive? Mine cost $99/card, for a total of $300 for three 2Mb 802.11 stations. Checkout the ZoomAir line.
Go easy on him, it sounds like he submitted this a week or so ago since he said "October is almost over" when in my neck of the woods it is already November 4th.
Now even more businessmen can stuff this one in their portfolio and naïvely proclaim that they invest in Linux. And the whole time they'll be using nothing but Windoze. Anyone else see the problem here?
I don't agree with that.
I own a decent amount of stock in an IT Professional Services company, but I'd be darned if I'd ever pay another company to do services for my company. I'm a do-it-yourself kind of guy.