2924 Switch: where is the CVSM ?

Its worse when people sell used NAS servers with all their data on it.

I wouldn't say that the web configuration was all that grand on this series switch in the first place, but it sounds like the proper files aren't loaded on the flash: device. What do you see with a 'dir flash:'?

Not sure what you are asking here. You should probably just do a 'write erase' and reboot and start from scratch anyway. The defaults are all very reasonable values for a single-standalone-switch.

Most likely.

Its all java, very dependant on JVM versions too (still to this date as well :( I suspect very few people actually use the web config things on Cisco gear.

You've got it for the default two. level 0 is your basic console CLI. Level 15 is enabled. You could setup more levels if you wish, and give different security levels to different users if you wish. Not much point on a switch, but on routers, it gets more interesting.

config.old was the config of the previous owner (config.text renamed to .old during password recovery, but in the end, I started the config from scratch and haven't gotten to deleting config.old).

Well, I've already put the switch in production so rebooting it would cause my VMS cluster to go down. Not the end of the world, but those are things I try to avoid :-)

Bummer... Strange that there would already be the HTTP server and some basic HTTP functionality, but that they would have omitted the extra HTML and java files. I take it those are all bundled into the software file (c2900xl-*.WC9.bin ?)

It seeemed neat to be able to get a status of ports in one screenfull. I guess I may give SNMP a try, perhaps that can give me a good snapshot as well.

Many thanks. Neat to see so much software/functionality in a switch.

You are missing some files. You should have a directory called html that contains the web pages and java scripts. You need a file such as: c2900xl-c3h2s-tar.120-5.WC15.tar which contains the bin file plus the html directory.

No, the bin file is just the kernel for the interface for the switch. The web interface was all seperate files in an html directory. On just about any cisco product, the web interface always seems an addon that controls the switch through CLI/SNMP, its never very integrated in.

Looks like the webfiles are gone from your switch.

Thanks for confirming this. Should I go back to the ebay vendor to complain about this ? (probably not his fault since he got those from some corporation that probably unloaded unneedded switches).

Or is the lack of html files common enough that a switch is still considered complete without them ?

With no support contract, I assume I am not able to download the missing pieces from the CISCO site ?

If i have no hope of getting the missing HTML files, could I setup my own mini web site on the switch and IP HTTP PATH myindex.html and then whenever my web servers are down, I could point HTTP requests to my switch during maintenance ?

The vendor probably has no idea whats there, the switch works, only the silly almost useless webinterface doesn't. As I posted before, hardley anybody uses the cisco web interfaces on these things I suspect.

Its complete in my view. :) The switch works otherwise, you just won't get the web-status view.

Its possible that they released a security patch release of the code with the full web management files (it comes in a .tar file, not a .bin). The release notes detail how to upgrade a switch with the proper extraction from the tar file onto the switch itself.

Not sure why you'd even consider such a thing? The cisco webserver is probably very low capacity, very low feature, etc. etc. You could probably find a box lying around doing something else that would have much more capacity and capabilities.

Based on the documentation I had stumbled on, it seemed that CISCO was placing a lot of emphasis on its web interface. How do most manage their switches ?

Direct access to the CLI ? Or use TFTP to pickup config files from a repository ?

In the case of large enterprise networks, are switches configured individually, or as a single cluster ?

Its probably a marketing decision to combat most of the competitors who tout the lack of decent cisco web config as cisco's main deficiency, rather than performance or feature set or managability, etc. etc. Ie. the stuff that really matters.

Yes. If you have to do the same commands to 10 switches, would you rather be able to telnet to them, copy and paste or run some sort of expect script and script out the commands you need? Or log into each one with a webbrowser, and click into each port, and then click into each option set, and set each option by hand for 10 switches x 24/48 ports?

Not so often that I run across.

Well, a really large enterprise tends to buy some pretty big switches, so there's only a few to manage in each area. I don't run across too many in stack/cluster configs, although there are some out there.

Just as an extra voice.

Everybody uses the CLI.

Cisco have done a pretty decent job of maintaining compatibility and standardisation of the CLI for more than 10 years. (Sorry that is as far back as I go). On the other hand they have completely failed to come up with a viable GUI interface (as I understand it).

There is (approximately) the CDM, SDM, Cxxx in many versions; each of them offer some arbitrary subset of the CLI. It is hard to figure out what is in and what is out. Oh and there is (if I recall correctly) another GUI for the wireless bit too.

You will not get much help with any of the GUIs here would be my guess. I have tried and tried to use it but it has not been worth it so far.

If you learn the CLI you then have access to the whole Cisco product suite. I know that other manufacturers have cracked the GUI (notably in my opinion Checkpoint) but for some reason Cisco are unable to get their act together on it. Give up is my advice.

On the other hand the CLI is a real work of art. Go figure, as they say over towards the west.

Cisco Works I believe (Well it did when the bit called Resource Manger Essentials was a discrete product) has a config management tool that allows config changes to be applied to multiple devices at the press of a button however:.... Since it is quite possible for config changes to cut you off from a device it would take someone with quite big ones to actually use such a facility.

OOPS - we have just lost Hong Kong, Tokyo, Moscow and Sydney, what's the number for the travel agency? I have places to go.

With Checkpoint though such work seems failry routine.

End of rant. For now:-)

Thanks. I didn't realise that CISCO's attempt at a GUI was so unpopular. I figured that the ability to visualise port statuses, and focus on a single prot quickly by clicking on it might have been very popular. But in the end, you are right that applying changes to port configs via a GUI would be long and tedious.

Once I configured one port right, I transfered the config over to my systems with TFTP, and then used a GUI editor to edit the commands and generate a config for all relevant ports and then sent the config back. to the switch. (and I then have a backup of the config on my system).

Of course, once I have gotten the hang of this and gotten the switch into a stable/final configuration, it will probably be in "leave it run alone" for a very long time.

The one thing I dislike of the CLI is that when you have begun to configure an interface (configure terminal, interface fa0/xx, you can no longer issue SHOW INTERFACE commands to see what is configured in it already.

...

I use cut and paste and notepad.

It is good to have a backup.

Maybe your switch has the interface range command? New ones do.

int range fa 0/1 - 10 ! Note 0/1[Space]-[Space]10 spann portfast

New software has switch(config)do show run

You can also use a second telnet session, which I use a lot.

Thanks to all who answered my questions on this issue.

I've gotten an email from Cisco support in south asia with my guest registration. I can finally access more parts of the cisco web site and was able to download the latest patch for the 2924XL switch which includes the web based files.

So I should be able to get a feel for what that web based thing is all about and whether it does or doesn't work. (I suspect it won't work because I don't run Microsoft software).

A final question: The download site does not differentiate between standard and enterprise versions. I am correct in stating that the enterprise features are part of the one software distribution, but only enabled when running on hardware having the "enterprise" bit set in its ROM ?

(By switch has a model number of WS-C2924-XL-EN in the back , so I assume that "enterprise" is determined by hardware and not by whcih software you download ?)

I do not know exactly for this model however there are a few cases:-

I have never seen or heard of an "Enterprise bit"

Some software runs on different switch models and generates Enterprise behaviour on one model and non-E behaiour on another. I forget the models that I have seen this on but they were visibly and functionally different - not just a bit set.

Some hardware can run different software and get different levels of functioning. Usually routers work like this. The router itself is not marked in any way depending on the software loaded at the factory.

Some switches can have different software loaded and get different functionality and were marked with a part number that stated the original factory load. I think that this may be where you are.

I suspect that in your case Cisco decided not to maintain the non-E software and now just make one version available.

Hmmm. May or may not be the case but I doubt that Cisco have any axe to grind here.

The web application is Java based. It'll work if you have the right Java plug-in loaded in your browser. On Windows, it doesn't like the latest Sun releases. I don't know about other platforms.

Greetings,

For most of their platforms, Cisco have no particular affinity with M$ (as far as I am aware) so I wouldn't let this worry you. In fact on the few times I have used the Web interface Mozilla has worked fine for me regardless of OS (personally, I don't use any M$ S/W myself).

I think you will find that the 2924-XL series only has the one IOS these days, the last Switches I saw a Standard/Enterprise distinction on were the 1900 series and that was not IOS........;-)

Cheers.....................pk.