[149739] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Sonicwall 3500/netflow
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Kim)
Tue Feb 14 11:14:45 2012
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
To: <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>, <blake@pfankuch.me>, <jay@miscreant.org>,
<jra@baylink.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:13:39 -0500
In-Reply-To: <D181DDABABE57E4DB72FEE00331478644A71DF@EALPO1.ukbroadband.com>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Never messed around with Juniper....
> From: leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com
> To: brandon.kim@brandontek.com=3B blake@pfankuch.me=3B jay@miscreant.org=
=3B jra@baylink.com
> CC: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Sonicwall 3500/netflow
> Date: Tue=2C 14 Feb 2012 15:53:43 +0000
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon.kim@brandontek.com]
> > Sent: 14 February 2012 15:51
> > To: blake@pfankuch.me=3B jay@miscreant.org=3B jra@baylink.com
> > Cc: nanog group
> > Subject: RE: Sonicwall 3500/netflow
> >=20
> >=20
> > I've been using 5.8 with no problems thus far. As for the CLI=2C yes it
> > is CLUNKY.
> >=20
> > But they are completely revamping it=2C it will be very similar to Cisc=
o
> > in the near future...
>=20
> Why do people like to base their CLIs on the really rather awful Cisco st=
yle interface rather than something with some more structure like Juniper?
>=20
>=20
> --
> Leigh Porter
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
=
