[c-nsp] WARNING: Netflow Data Export & Hardware assisted NAT not supported on 76xx/65xx on the same interface

[Phil Mayers]

On 08/27/2011 10:31 PM, Matthew Huff wrote:

> As far as speaking to a TME, I work in small trading firm. We don't
> have the luxury of long, involved RFP with detailed descriptions or
> time to work with a TME to discuss every detail of every
> configuration we use. We expect if a vendor advertise features, that
> they should work, except when they are documented (like caveats).

I'm not saying this behaviour is acceptable, or that you are in any way 
at fault, but it's important to emphasise that every single networking 
vendor we've had dealings with has done something like this at some 
point, and I'm sure there were innumerable other undocumented caveats 
that we didn't run into that other customers of those vendors did.

This is incredibly irritating - it imposes economic costs on every user, 
potential and real, as they have to discover the limits - but it is 
surely unarguably the case that vendors do not usually document their 
device limitations in a useful and accessible form.

(Many then make strenuous efforts to avoid uttering the phrase 
"limitation" on the instructions of their lawyers, so it's to the credit 
of Cisco that they've owned up, although I realise this is of no 
practical use to you)

There seem to me to be a number of reasons why this happens; not least, 
the absence of the equivalent of consumer protection when selling to 
business. I guess that the relative immaturity[1] of the market as well 
as the complexity and diversity of the products contributes.

Bottom line: you *should* be able to trust vendor marketing, but you 
*can't*, and I strongly advise you don't, for Cisco or any other vendor 
- they simply don't convey accurate information reliably enough :o(

Cheers,
Phil

[1] In comparison for the market for something like, say, cars, or 
televisions.