Hmmm, you appear to be correct.  I'm looking through the quick reference
guide and I don't see the NM-1E2W as an option on the 2600 series.  That
might be a problem.  <g>   I wonder if it's actually working.  

>>> "Jim Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3/23/01 3:53:34 PM >>>
I don't think that module is even supported in the 2600's. Someone
correct
me if I'm wrong, but can't you only use the NM-1E or NM-2W, not a
NM-1E2W in
the 2600's

-----Original Message-----
From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 3:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Re: 2610 Serial Interface Puzzler


Those modules are numbered from right to left, but only includes
installed modules, I believe.  If you had two installed, they would
be--from left to right--1/1 and 1/0.

>>> "Gareth Hinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3/23/01 2:50:43 PM
>>>
Hi All,

Can anybody please explain the following:

I've been messing with a 2600 with an NM1E2W running 12.1(5)T
I put a WIC1T in to slot W0, so this understandably became Serial 1/0.
Powered down, removed WIC1T and restarted then WR MEM so any config
for
S1/0
is gone.
Powered down. Inserted WIC1T into slot W1.
This also came up as S1/0 as opposed to what I would have expected
(S1/1).
I had successful connections on S1/0 while WIC1T was in either slot.

I'd be interested to see what happens with two WIC1T's in but had to
get the
router on line before I could get hold of another WIC1T.

Anyone know the reason for this?

Thanks,

Gareth


_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html 
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]




_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html 
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to