Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
NinjaPablo
Nov 20, 2003

Ewww it's all sticky...
Grimey Drawer
Can anyone point me in the direction or explain how IOS version numbers work? A while back, this vulnerability came out - http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20070124-crafted-tcp.shtml

12.0T is listed as vulnerable, as is 12.1T. Output from show ver on a router here shows:

code:
IOS (tm) C2600 Software (C2600-I-M), Version 12.0(7)T,  RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2)
Copyright (c) 1986-1999 by cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Tue 07-Dec-99 02:12 by phanguye
Image text-base: 0x80008088, data-base: 0x807AAF70

ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.1(3r)T2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)

gateway uptime is 9 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 11 minutes
System returned to ROM by power-on
System image file is "flash:c2600-i-mz.120-7.T"
When I called Cisco, they said it wasn't vulnerable. I guess all the stuff in ()s in the version confuses me.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

NinjaPablo
Nov 20, 2003

Ewww it's all sticky...
Grimey Drawer
I've got a 2620 that I am trying to setup MLPPP across 2 T1s on. Spent over an hour on the phone with the ISP trying to get this working. When I mentioned it was a 2620, he immediately said that it was probably too old of a version of IOS.
code:
Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) C2600 Software (C2600-I-M), Version 12.0(7)T,  RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2)
Copyright (c) 1986-1999 by cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Tue 07-Dec-99 02:12 by phanguye
Image text-base: 0x80008088, data-base: 0x807AAF70

ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.1(3r)T2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)

gts_gateway uptime is 3 days, 17 hours, 59 minutes
System returned to ROM by reload
System image file is "flash:c2600-i-mz.120-7.T"

cisco 2620 (MPC860) processor (revision 0x600) with 26624K/6144K bytes of memory.
I was only able to get it running on 1 T1, leaving that T1 encap as HDLC.

I was able to bring either T1 up as PPP, but they would not pass any traffic. I was also able to bring both T1s up as PPP, add them to a multilink group, and have that multilink show up/up, but not pass traffic.

I'm running a very basic config on this. Any ideas on what I need to do to get this running correctly?

NinjaPablo
Nov 20, 2003

Ewww it's all sticky...
Grimey Drawer
I was able to ping and telnet by IP address only when the MLPPP config was in place, or when I was only using a single T1 as PPP. As soon as I'd have the ISP update their end to not be MLPPP, and change back to HDLC, and I switched back to HDLC on my end, all normal traffic would work.
code:
ip subnet-zero

interface Multilink1
 ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.252
 no ip directed-broadcast
 no cdp enable
 ppp chap hostname gateway
 ppp multilink
 no ppp multilink fragmentation
 multilink-group 1

interface FastEthernet0/0
 ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.224
 no ip directed-broadcast
 speed 100
 full-duplex

interface Serial0/0 (currently running on this alone)
 ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.252
 no ip directed-broadcast
 no fair-queue

interface Serial0/1 (when I had the ISP switch to PPP, both interfaces looked exactly like this)
 ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.252
 no ip directed-broadcast
 encapsulation ppp
 no fair-queue
 ppp chap hostname gateway
 ppp multilink
 multilink-group 1

ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0/0 (I changed this to m1 when the MLPPP config was in place)
no ip http server

NinjaPablo fucked around with this message at 23:01 on May 21, 2007

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply