Unanswered Question
Jan 30th, 2008
User Badges:
  • Blue, 1500 points or more

I downloaded a new catOS, version 8.5.7 for a 6509 and Im running bootstrap version 7.1.1.

I added a prepend boot variable statement for the new code but the switch will not come up on the new code, only the old code.

Has anyone experienced this????


  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Richard Burts Wed, 01/30/2008 - 20:56
User Badges:
  • Super Silver, 17500 points or more
  • Hall of Fame,

    Founding Member

  • Cisco Designated VIP,

    2017 LAN, WAN


We would be able to give better answers if you would give us some more detail. It would be especially helpful if you would post the content of flash/bootflash and if you posted the exact command that you configured.

It would also be helpful if you would boot the switch again and capture and post all the messages that are generated to the console during the boot process.



glen.grant Thu, 01/31/2008 - 05:11
User Badges:
  • Purple, 4500 points or more

Can you post a "dir bootflash: or dir disk0: or slot0: , wherever you have the image and also a " show boot" command .

lamav Thu, 01/31/2008 - 15:19
User Badges:
  • Blue, 1500 points or more

Hi, Folks:

Sorry it took me so long to get back.

Here is what happened...

We were in th emiddle of a maintenance window, upgrading code on 6500 CatOS switches to 8.5.7. The bootstrap version we were running was 7.1.1.

I posted this message vecause I wanted ot make sure that we weren't forgetting something to make this work.

We downloadec ode to the bootflash: of the single SUP, prepended the boot variable staement to make it the primary version to use after reboot, and we even ran the "verify" command to ensure that the code had not gotten corrupted...

As it turns out, Cisco TAC suggested that the image file on the TFTP server had gotten corrupted. So, we re-uploaded the code to the TFTP server from a switch successfully running 8.5.7 and then used that image. It worked, but we still had issues with the switches coming back up...we are still investigating with Cisco.

I am curious to know how reliable or accurate this "verify" command really is...doesnt seem like one should hold too much stock in it.



This Discussion