Automatic filtering - CISCO, you should think about this...
phil at charon.milepost.com
Mon Dec 29 14:24:49 UTC 1997
Alex P. Rudnev writes...
> > How about having "no-auto-inbound-filter" instead, making the default in
> > new versions of IOS be to run this essential level of protection, providing
> > a means to turn it off only for those who know they need to turn it off.
> It was proposed to CISCO about 1 year ago. But I have head they are doing
> something about this (through it's in private talks only).
Once the appropriate management decides that a feature like this is a top
priority, Cisco surely has the resources to get it implemented into IOS
code, and tested, in perhaps 3 months and no less than 6 months. They
clearly have other priorities. We need to push this one ahead, to the top.
I'd even settle for having the function w/o a way to turn it off as an
interim if the holdup is deciding how to make it configurable.
We should all ask our Cisco sales people if "default auto-inbound-filter"
will be in all shipped IOS versions by, say, 2Q98. If they can't say "yes"
then grill 'em and leave the impression you'll be looking at other products
And if you have Ascend sales people calling, ask 'em the same thing. Same
for anyone else. For example I have a 3com salesman constantly checking up
on how happy I am with my Ascend MAX's. I know what I'll be asking him on
his next phone call.
Phil Howard | end1it83 at lame9ads.com stop8ads at no75ads2.net crash161 at noplace3.org
phil | die0spam at spam6mer.net die4spam at spam7mer.com ads8suck at spammer5.com
at | suck7it1 at no7where.edu crash118 at s2p8a9m5.net stop4578 at spam0mer.net
milepost | suck2it8 at no31ads0.edu crash333 at dumbads0.org stop2498 at lame4ads.edu
dot | ads1suck at no7where.com no5way77 at s4p8a8m2.net end9ads3 at lame9ads.net
com | no1spam2 at dumbads0.edu stop2410 at spam4mer.org ads2suck at noplace5.edu
More information about the NANOG