Hi,
I'm sorry that I assumed you were more familiar with CDP.
I think because it's a Cisco protocol many manufacturers want to
interoperate with it. I know that at least HP and Broadcom (in their VoIP
chipsets) support it, as well as the Linux protocol stack.
Got to run!
Jaap
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007
Hi,
Of course that's why you review the patches! And I haven't said
anything about this review. You, guys, are the "wireshark experts" and
you know better than me the potential side effect(s) of a particular patch.
But I'm sorry to try to glean some additional information because *I*
didn't get
Hi,
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> hu ... do you meant
>
> "Here is a patch for the management of the bad/good checksum for ISIS
> (like TCP/UDP/IP).
>
> support added for :
> - booleans hf_isis_lsp_checksum_good, hf_isis_lsp_checksum_bad in the tree,
> - information in the i
hu ... do you meant
"Here is a patch for the management of the bad/good checksum for ISIS
(like TCP/UDP/IP).
support added for :
- booleans hf_isis_lsp_checksum_good, hf_isis_lsp_checksum_bad in the tree,
- information in the info column if bad checksum,
- expert info for bad checksum,
-
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:52:21PM +0100, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
>I am not defending anything here (cause as you said I can change this
> preference rule) but I don't get to the point. CDP is only implemented
> on Cisco routers but there are also Juniper, Hitachi, Alcatel, Nortel,
> 6wind etc.
Hi,
For now? Yes
Thanx,
Jaap
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> Hi Jaap,
>
>
>I am not defending anything here (cause as you said I can change this
> preference rule) but I don't get to the point. CDP is only implemented
> on Cisco routers but there are also Juniper, Hitachi, Alc
Hi Jaap,
I am not defending anything here (cause as you said I can change this
preference rule) but I don't get to the point. CDP is only implemented
on Cisco routers but there are also Juniper, Hitachi, Alcatel, Nortel,
6wind etc... Having Cisco routers does not imply you'll configure CDP.
Fu
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Guy Harris wrote:
> Jaap Keuter wrote:
>
> > It dropped the more common CDP part of the rule for the less common ISIS
> > part. It can be a personal prefernce but I didn't see a reason to force
> > this onto everyone.
>
> I.e., the colorfilter file is the default that everybo
Jaap Keuter wrote:
> It dropped the more common CDP part of the rule for the less common ISIS
> part. It can be a personal prefernce but I didn't see a reason to force
> this onto everyone.
I.e., the colorfilter file is the default that everybody gets unless
they edit the color filters and save
Hi,
It dropped the more common CDP part of the rule for the less common ISIS
part. It can be a personal prefernce but I didn't see a reason to force
this onto everyone.
Thanx,
Jaap
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Stephen Fisher wrote:
> Any reason the colorfilter update wasn't checked in?
>
> On Tue, Dec
Any reason the colorfilter update wasn't checked in?
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 10:13:31AM +0100, Jaap Keuter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Checked in.
>
> Thanx,
> Jaap
>
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> >Here is a patch for the management of the bad/good checksum for IS
Hi,
Checked in.
Thanx,
Jaap
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>Here is a patch for the management of the bad/good checksum for ISIS
> (like TCP/UDP/IP).
> support added for :
> - booleans hf_isis_lsp_checksum_good, hf_isis_lsp_checksum_bad in the tree,
> - information
Hi all,
Here is a patch for the management of the bad/good checksum for ISIS
(like TCP/UDP/IP).
support added for :
- booleans hf_isis_lsp_checksum_good, hf_isis_lsp_checksum_bad in the tree,
- information in the info column if bad checksum,
- expert info for bad checksum,
- color filters updat
13 matches
Mail list logo
