Installed a WS-X4448-GB-RJ45 in each of 2 cat4006's
running 6.2(3a) cat-os and h/w rev. 1.2. on the supers.
The cards weren't recognised.

One of the supervisor II' then wen't belly up failing POST.

This was replaced under maintenace with a supervisor II
running 7.4(2) cat-os and h/w rev. 2.0.

Question is, was it the cat-os change or h/w rev that made
the card visible?

TIA, Simon.

I know I didn't state it, but the new super made the
WS-X4448-GB-RJ45 visible.

"Simon Marsden" <(DELETE)postmaster@simonmarsden.com> wrote in message
news:cdcio8$g0u$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Installed a WS-X4448-GB-RJ45 in each of 2 cat4006's
> running 6.2(3a) cat-os and h/w rev. 1.2. on the supers.
> The cards weren't recognised.
>
> One of the supervisor II' then wen't belly up failing POST.
>
> This was replaced under maintenace with a supervisor II
> running 7.4(2) cat-os and h/w rev. 2.0.
>
> Question is, was it the cat-os change or h/w rev that made
> the card visible?
>
> TIA, Simon.
>
>
>

I think this may be due to the field notice on Cisco:
Document ID: 11061
Unfortunately, I don't the the serial No. of the part that
was replaced. It may have been the Serdes chip, as we
were already running 6.2(3a) cat-os.

The new one has a JAB0428xxxx serial, so that fit's.

The other 4006 which works fine apart from not recognising
the new card has a JAB0431xxxx serial so that may
just need a cat-os upgrade?


"Simon Marsden" <(DELETE)postmaster@simonmarsden.com> wrote in message
news:cdcjh6$5vb$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> I know I didn't state it, but the new super made the
> WS-X4448-GB-RJ45 visible.
>
> "Simon Marsden" <(DELETE)postmaster@simonmarsden.com> wrote in message
> news:cdcio8$g0u$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > Installed a WS-X4448-GB-RJ45 in each of 2 cat4006's
> > running 6.2(3a) cat-os and h/w rev. 1.2. on the supers.
> > The cards weren't recognised.
> >
> > One of the supervisor II' then wen't belly up failing POST.
> >
> > This was replaced under maintenace with a supervisor II
> > running 7.4(2) cat-os and h/w rev. 2.0.
> >
> > Question is, was it the cat-os change or h/w rev that made
> > the card visible?
> >
> > TIA, Simon.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

This hardware feature is new to software release 7.1:

..48-port Gigabit Ethernet 10/100/1000 switching module (WS-X4448-GB-rj45)



"Simon Marsden" <(DELETE)postmaster@simonmarsden.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:cdckvi$ias$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> I think this may be due to the field notice on Cisco:
> Document ID: 11061
> Unfortunately, I don't the the serial No. of the part that
> was replaced. It may have been the Serdes chip, as we
> were already running 6.2(3a) cat-os.
>
> The new one has a JAB0428xxxx serial, so that fit's.
>
> The other 4006 which works fine apart from not recognising
> the new card has a JAB0431xxxx serial so that may
> just need a cat-os upgrade?
>
>
> "Simon Marsden" <(DELETE)postmaster@simonmarsden.com> wrote in message
> news:cdcjh6$5vb$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > I know I didn't state it, but the new super made the
> > WS-X4448-GB-RJ45 visible.
> >
> > "Simon Marsden" <(DELETE)postmaster@simonmarsden.com> wrote in message
> > news:cdcio8$g0u$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > Installed a WS-X4448-GB-RJ45 in each of 2 cat4006's
> > > running 6.2(3a) cat-os and h/w rev. 1.2. on the supers.
> > > The cards weren't recognised.
> > >
> > > One of the supervisor II' then wen't belly up failing POST.
> > >
> > > This was replaced under maintenace with a supervisor II
> > > running 7.4(2) cat-os and h/w rev. 2.0.
> > >
> > > Question is, was it the cat-os change or h/w rev that made
> > > the card visible?
> > >
> > > TIA, Simon.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Just need to schedule some downtime then.
Thanks.

"Make" <make@make.com> wrote in message
news:cde2v5$o0c$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> This hardware feature is new to software release 7.1:
>
> .48-port Gigabit Ethernet 10/100/1000 switching module (WS-X4448-GB-rj45)
>
>
>
> "Simon Marsden" <(DELETE)postmaster@simonmarsden.com> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:cdckvi$ias$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > I think this may be due to the field notice on Cisco:
> > Document ID: 11061
> > Unfortunately, I don't the the serial No. of the part that
> > was replaced. It may have been the Serdes chip, as we
> > were already running 6.2(3a) cat-os.
> >
> > The new one has a JAB0428xxxx serial, so that fit's.
> >
> > The other 4006 which works fine apart from not recognising
> > the new card has a JAB0431xxxx serial so that may
> > just need a cat-os upgrade?
> >
> >
> > "Simon Marsden" <(DELETE)postmaster@simonmarsden.com> wrote in message
> > news:cdcjh6$5vb$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > > I know I didn't state it, but the new super made the
> > > WS-X4448-GB-RJ45 visible.
> > >
> > > "Simon Marsden" <(DELETE)postmaster@simonmarsden.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cdcio8$g0u$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > > Installed a WS-X4448-GB-RJ45 in each of 2 cat4006's
> > > > running 6.2(3a) cat-os and h/w rev. 1.2. on the supers.
> > > > The cards weren't recognised.
> > > >
> > > > One of the supervisor II' then wen't belly up failing POST.
> > > >
> > > > This was replaced under maintenace with a supervisor II
> > > > running 7.4(2) cat-os and h/w rev. 2.0.
> > > >
> > > > Question is, was it the cat-os change or h/w rev that made
> > > > the card visible?
> > > >
> > > > TIA, Simon.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>