https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/field-notices/743...
"Cisco Access Points That Are Running, Or Have Run, Releases 17.12.4, 17.12.5, 17.12.6, or 17.12.6a May Exhaust Flash Space, Preventing Upgrades"
Recovery path basically involves either factory resetting every single AP or up to, if it's already bricked, Cisco TAC + you having to console into every single bricked AP you have to pass a secret challenge/response at the bootloader to flash a recovery image :)
And they've overstretched their product line to too many things, trying to be the "be all" company. Fortinet is making the same mistake, but they're earlier in that process.
I mean, it's not really a mistake on their parts, their primary goal is to get rich and they are succeeding.
Citation: I've been working with Cisco technologies since the mid-1990s. At my current job, we are a few weeks away from phasing out the last of our Cisco junk. And since people will ask: to Juniper/Mist and Arista.
Otherwise he's just going to replicate all the legacy bugs and questionable design decisions.
The main takeaway though is we had one person, in a single month, do the equivalent of at least a couple years of work for a small team. We view bugs and performance issues as a currently inevitable part of the process and we are dealing with them with models just like we do with humans on every other project already. Overall though it is representing an absolutely massive speedup. If you work in an environment where the models make egregiously more mistakes than your human counterparts then I am quite jealous.
Legacy code is typically a euphemism for old unmaintained code, no one knows how it works so it can be edited, and it probably doesn't align with current work practices.
Not to say a rewrite is necessary right, but avoiding rewrites of working code is how we ended up with more COBOL code than COBOL programmers in 2026.
I think people are assuming the worst but AIs most helpful contribution beyond churning out code is explaining the code base.
Who knows if they will do a good or bad job that's down to the engineers and not the tools imo.
That said, there's also research pointing to LLMs encoding existing bugs as test requirements: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.05139
That CS PHD researcher, Konstantinou, in particular, has written a lot on this: https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Konstant...
Your rewritten codebase will presumably look much cleaner and more maintainable that what it's aiming to replace, but it's easy to miss the purpose/necessity of all of the old "cruft" which need not be just poor coding but rather later enhancements not anticipated by the original design whose implementation was therefore crufty.
Does anyone here work at Cisco, and have any insight as to why a rewrite is considered necessary and might be expected to succeed?
What have been achieved using this port?
And how did you make sure the port is correct?
-Works according to a defined specification
-Within the bounds of that specification, has a lot of code written to optimize speed, cost, latency, etc - all measureable goals
-Written in c, with all it's weakness
-Given limitless engineering work, some could be ported to better hardware
-the new system could be automatically compared to the old system for functional correctness
All those factors fit well with agent based development.
Btw, many of them are true in general to embedded systems.
Then consider that not all vendors implement the standards identically, because the standards can be a bit woolly and in some cases followed rather than lead live implementations.
There will be a bunch of code that looks useless, but is actually there because of specific interoperability scenarios.
I wonder whether AI is any good at looking at that code,running the system, and documenting those edge cases?
Lots of this stuff should work in theory, you only find out that it doesn't in practice when you try it on real hardware. And there are thousands of bits of hardware.
This whole thing sounds like a deluded vanity project birthed in an ivory tower.
There are also tight time budgets (basically SLAs) that must be met along with memory considerations (both in SW and on the NPU/HBM), not to mention how the device needs to respond to load and various failure scenarios.
Fortune's source was the CEO himself:
> “I’ve given him unlimited tokens because he’s going to refactor code,” Patel told Fortune at a small roundtable dinner. “So I’m like, you can go, you can go nuts.”
I think that Fortune story is better than the Tom's Hardware one. It ties the Cisco anecdote into a larger trend of some people deliberately hiring younger, less experienced developers for their AI projects - because they are more likely to be "AI native".
I frequently find myself in conversations with people who are resistant to AI and turn out to have a very skewed idea of what it can and cannot do.
Not clear to me what he's doing. Re-implement switching? Simplify features? Reduce LoC? Add test coverage? Either way, AI in that world will be helpful. I'm sure it'll spot all kinds of problems in opaque drivers that are hard to follow from MF specs.
it's the testing in real world usage to shake out all the edge cases and bugs that's hard and that you can't just write unit tests for