[c-nsp] EMI image on 3750-48PS

[Charles J. Boening]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



When I upgraded a couple SMI 3550's to EMI, I downloaded the software
through CCO and I also received a CDROM.  The thing with the CDROM is
that it's not going to necessarily be current.  The more important thing
you get with the CDROM is the piece of paper that says your legal.


Charlie


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of B
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:38 AM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] EMI image on 3750-48PS
> 
> Thanks for the responses.
> 
> Follow up question to this....
> 
> If I have SMI only images and want to upgrade, can the EMI 
> image be downloaded from CCO if the licenses are purchased?  
> Or does Cisco send the upgrade kit via CDROM?
> 
> 
> On 6/28/06, Charles J. Boening <charlieb at cot.net> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > You will get a software mismatch error if they don't all 
> match and you 
> > won't get working ports for any switch but the master.  I 
> went through 
> > the same thing and I think that's how it worked.  I do remember 
> > getting the software mismatch and I'm pretty sure I 
> remember ports on 
> > the slave not working.
> >
> > Given that, I'd also say if you want EMI on all switches in 
> the stack, 
> > then you should have EMI licenses for all switches in the 
> stack to be 
> > legal.
> >
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> > > [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jeff Kell
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:36 PM
> > > To: Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists
> > > Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] EMI image on 3750-48PS
> > >
> > > Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
> > > >> If full dynamic IP routing is required on a stack of two 
> > > >> 3750-48PS switches utilizing the stacking cable, is 
> the EMI image
> > > required on
> > > >> both switches or can one have the standard image?
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >> >From a redundancy viewpoint, it would be a bad idea to have IP
> > > >> Services on only one of them...
> > > >> Also, it's easier to administer (e.g. to upgrade 
> software), when 
> > > >> they're running the same software.
> > >
> > > So what is the bottom line?  Can you mix EMI/SMI in the 
> same stack 
> > > or not?  If you lose the [last] EMI does it crash in a 
> spectacular 
> > > manner?  :-)
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
> >
> > iD8DBQFEohyvcGGHuFdGSWARAirwAJ4m6vFaKX12pYCVM4nbwRKwWo+b+QCggudy
> > ZhRg62X8XLbRALd0h8uXbhU=
> > =6j0Q
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEorgpcGGHuFdGSWARAvmbAJ4ovHicva8eHD71RJXfjpUIHBe1JwCePySx
V6XS3Idv0RBePHR+1/4ra5s=
=iyjJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----