I had always considered the Cisco Feature Navigator (CFN) tool an useful an reliable source of information about supported features (among other things) of specific Cisco equipment, until yesterday, when the results obtained on my tests at a lab contradicted the ones found at the CFN.
Specifically I found that to be able to deploy a working Policy Based Routing (PBR) configuration it was necessary to activate the Advanced Metro IP Services license (to activate the SDM prefer video needed for PBR) while the CFN said that having the Metro IP services was enough.
Do you agree with my conclusions about the unreliability of the CFN? How can we report this situation to Cisco in order them to correct it? If I can't trust the CFN and I have to test absolutelly everything it can be a frustrating and very slow way to work with Cisco equipment. Thanks,
Hi everyone, I would like to thank you in advance for any help you can provide a newcomer like myself!
Im studying the 100-105 book by Odom and am currently on the topic of Port security. I purchased a used 2960 and I'm trying to follow a...
While deploying a number of 18xx/2802/3802 model access points (APs), which run AP-COS as their operating platform. It can be observed on some occasions that while many of their access points were able to join the fabric WLC withou...
I am going to design and build an LAN network under a tunnel underground with long distance between the switches.
I will have 2 Catalyst switches and 8 Industrial IE3000, and they will be connected with fiber.
For now I am planning on use Layer-2 s...