I couldn't find an release at ironport.com site, but email spreads quick, received an email telling this...
IronPort Systems is happy to announce the general availability of Mail Flow Central version 1.3. This release is available immediately for download from our website.
IronPort Mail Flow Central is a software application that complements your IronPort C-Series email security appliances by providing a centralized monitoring and reporting engine to track the status of any email message that traversed through your appliances. Its centralized reporting capabilities allow you to generate and archive enterprise-wide reports on email volume, spam and virus statistics, and email policy violations.
IronPort Mail Flow Central 1.3 can be deployed on a Microsoft Windows 2000 server (SP4) or Microsoft Windows 2003 server (SP1). Please refer to the sizing sheet for the exact hardware specifications based on your unique performance requirements.
While most of the customers using 1.4 have been pleased with the increased performance, we are still not ready to distribute it widely. The exact launch date is still TBD, but I expect we'll have it out this quarter.
I understand that MFC is not our strongest product -- be on the lookout for our 6.0 release towards the end of this year when we will release on box tools that will greatly improve our offering in this area.
it's still the worst tool in the IRONPORT bag of tricks
I've not used MFC myself, but I have looked at it enough to understand basically how it works. MFC's functionality can be easily divided into three parts: a web server front end, a database back end, and a data gatherer to analyze the logs from the e-mail appliances. If I understand MFC properly, all three of these parts run on the same system. If I had to make a guess, I'd say this was a deliberate choice by IronPort to make installation and upgrade simple and easy. However, it does mean that MFC is limited in what it can do because it all has to fit on one server.
I've given some thought to writing our own MFC-like thing that would have the capacity to handle our traffic load. The first choice I made was to separate those three functions onto different servers. In addition to decoupling those functions so they don't compete against each other for resources, it would also allow me to throw some serious iron at the database. However, I haven't gotten around to writing anything because we're spread too thin here, and because of what chaag hints will be coming in the 6.0 release.
DocumentationCode download linksGoalRequirementLimitationsSupported ISR
and UCS-E ModelSupported ISRG2 and UCS-E Blades:Supported ISR4K and
UCS-E Blades:Step by Step ConfigurationConfigure one of the connectivity
options to access the Cisco IMC from the n...
Firepower Threat Defense (NGFWv) on UCS E-series - Transparent Mode in
HA DocumentationCode download linksGoalRequirementLimitationsSupported
ISR and UCS-E ModelSupported ISRG2 and UCS-E Blades:Supported ISR4K and
UCS-E Blades:Step by Step ConfigurationCo...
Question I am currently unable to specify "crypto keyring" command when
configuring VPN connection on my cisco 2901 router. The following
licenses have been activated on my router :