Thanks! ---------- Sent from my Nokia Phone
------Original message------ From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2011 12:24:11 AM GMT-0400 Subject: CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 67, Issue 5 Send CCIE_RS mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CCIE_RS digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: -STUPID BUT, TRY HAVING A LOOK. (Marko Milivojevic) 2. Re: CCIE lab fee raised! (Matt Hill) 3. Re: CCIE lab fee raised! (Muhammad Faisal Khan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 14:20:19 -0700 From: Marko Milivojevic <[email protected]> To: gaurav nunia <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] -STUPID BUT, TRY HAVING A LOOK. Message-ID: <CAGDYm0wuPk0NEuMpLe=+d+j7gqe0jmia+avu2aq+wdfcud7...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yes, it's GNS3. Timers are too aggressive for a slow CPU. -- Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture Mailto: [email protected] Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/ On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 05:11, gaurav nunia <[email protected]> wrote: > ------ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -------- > | R1|----------------------------| R2 | > ------ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -------- > > > with *R1 serial 10.1.1.1/24* and *R2 serial 10.1.1.2/24 * > > I was trying to watch BGP behave, when timers changed. > it was all fine, until this started, the BGP peering getting flapped. > > THE POINT IS THE BGP PEERING GETS RESET ONLY WHEN THE COMMAND ? ' *SH RUN | > S R B'* ?IS USED, NO MATTER ON WHICH ROUTER. > > there is not much configuration to debug, its just a pattern. THOUGH I TRIED > IT ON GNS3 AND DIDN'T RELOADED THE ROUTERS :) > THE OUTPUT IS PASTED BELOW TOO. > the configuration on R2 is > > R2#sh run | s r b > router bgp 2 > ?no synchronization > ?bgp log-neighbor-changes > ?neighbor 10.1.1.1 remote-as 1 > ?neighbor 10.1.1.1 timers 1 3 > ?no auto-summary > ? * I ?used a neighbor specific command to alter timers, in R2.*, but > timers under bgp process in R1 > > > > and for R1 i'm copying the CLI content here, *SORRY FOR ITS QUITE EXTENDED*- > > > R1(config)# > R1(config)# > R1(config)#router bgp 1 > R1(config-router)#timers 10 30 3 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ^ > % Invalid input detected at '^' marker. > > R1(config-router)#timers bgp 10 30 3 > R1(config-router)#exit > R1(config)#do clear ip > *Mar ?1 00:35:56.955: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up > R1(config)# > R1(config)# > R1(config)#do sh run | s r b > router bgp 1 > ?no synchronization > ?bgp log-neighbor-changes > ?timers bgp 10 30 3 > ?neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 2 > ?no auto-summary > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:39:42.591: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Down BGP > Notification sent > *Mar ?1 00:39:42.591: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 10.1.1.2 4/0 > (hold time expired) 0 bytes > R1(config)#do sh ip bgp neigh 1 > *Mar ?1 00:40:11.043: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up . > R1(config)#do sh ip bgp neigh 10.1.1.2 > BGP neighbor is 10.1.1.2, ?remote AS 2, external link > ?BGP version 4, remote router ID 10.1.1.2 > ?BGP state = Established, up for 00:00:09 > ?Last read 00:00:00, last write 00:00:00, hold time is 3, keepalive > interval is 1 seconds > ?Configured hold time is 30,keepalive interval is 10 seconds, Minimum > holdtime from neighbor is 3 seconds > ?Neighbor capabilities: > ? ?Route refresh: advertised and received(old & new) > ? ?Address family IPv4 Unicast: advertised and received > ?Message statistics: > ? ?InQ depth is 0 > ? ?OutQ depth is 0 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Sent ? ? ? Rcvd > ? ?Opens: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 45 ? ? ? ? 45 > ? ?Notifications: ? ? ? ? 43 ? ? ? ? ?0 > ? ?Updates: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0 ? ? ? ? ?0 > ? ?Keepalives: ? ? ? ? ? 928 ? ? ? ?923 > ? ?Route Refresh: ? ? ? ? ?2 ? ? ? ? ?1 > ? ?Total: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?995 ? ? ? ?985 > ?Default minimum time between advertisement runs is 30 seconds > > ?For address family: IPv4 Unicast > ?BGP table version 1, neighbor version 1/0 > ?Output queue size: 0 > > R1(config)# > R1(config)# > R1(config)# > R1(config)#do debug ip bgp keep > BGP keepalives debugging is on for address family: IPv4 Unicast > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:40:48.243: BGP: 10.1.1.2 received KEEPALIVE, length (excl. > header) 0 > *Mar ?1 00:40:49.059: BGP: 10.1.1.2 sending KEEPALIVE (io) > *Mar ?1 00:40:49.063: BGP: 10.1.1.2 received KEEPALIVE, length (excl. > header) 0 > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:40:50.035: BGP: 10.1.1.2 sending KEEPALIVE (io) > *Mar ?1 00:40:50.039: BGP: 10.1.1.2 received KEEPALIVE, length (excl. > header) 0 > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:40:51.059: BGP: 10.1.1.2 sending KEEPALIVE (io) > *Mar ?1 00:40:51.063: BGP: 10.1.1.2 received KEEPALIVE, length (excl. > header) 0 > *Mar ?1 00:40:52.051: BGP: 10.1.1.2 sending KEEPALIVE (io) > *Mar ?1 00:40:52.055: BGP: 10.1.1.2 received KEEPALIVE, length (excl. > header) 0 > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:40:53.043: BGP: 10.1.1.2 sending KEEPALIVE (io) > *Mar ?1 00:40:53.047: BGP: 10.1.1.2 received KEEPALIVE, length (excl. > header) 0 > *Mar ?1 00:40:54.019: BGP: 10.1.1.2 sending KEEPALIVE (io) > *Mar ?1 00:40:54.023: BGP: 10.1.1.2 received KEEPALIVE, length (excl. > header) 0 > R1(config)#do u all > All possible debugging has been turned off > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:40:55.043: BGP: 10.1.1.2 sending KEEPALIVE (io) > *Mar ?1 00:40:55.051: BGP: 10.1.1.2 received KEEPALIVE, length (excl. > header) 0 > *Mar ?1 00:40:56.019: BGP: 10.1.1.2 sending KEEPALIVE (io) > *Mar ?1 00:40:56.023: BGP: 10.1.1.2 received KEEPALIVE, length (excl. > header) 0 > R1(config)# > R1(config)# > R1(config)# > R1(config)#do sh run | s r b > router bgp 1 > ?no synchronization > ?bgp log-neighbor-changes > ?timers bgp 10 30 3 > ?neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 2 > ?no auto-summary > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:42:17.399: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Down BGP > Notification sent > *Mar ?1 00:42:17.399: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 10.1.1.2 4/0 > (hold time expired) 0 bytes > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:42:46.467: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up > R1(config)#do sh run | s r b > router bgp 1 > ?no synchronization > ?bgp log-neighbor-changes > ?timers bgp 10 30 3 > ?neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 2 > ?no auto-summary > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:51:10.899: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Down BGP > Notification sent > *Mar ?1 00:51:10.899: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 10.1.1.2 4/0 > (hold time expired) 0 bytes > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:51:42.911: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up > R1(config)# > R1(config)# > R1(config)# > R1(config)#do sh run | s r b > router bgp 1 > ?no synchronization > ?bgp log-neighbor-changes > ?timers bgp 10 30 3 > ?neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 2 > ?no auto-summary > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:54:41.083: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Down BGP > Notification sent > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:54:41.083: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 10.1.1.2 4/0 > (hold time expired) 0 bytes > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:55:16.095: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up > R1(config)# > R1(config)#sh ip bgp summ > ? ? ? ? ? ? ^ > % Invalid input detected at '^' marker. > > R1(config)#do sh ip bgp summ > BGP router identifier 10.1.1.1, local AS number 1 > BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > > Neighbor ? ? ? ?V ? ?AS MsgRcvd MsgSent ? TblVer ?InQ OutQ Up/Down > State/PfxRcd > 10.1.1.2 ? ? ? ?4 ? ? 2 ? ?1903 ? ?1919 ? ? ? ?1 ? ?0 ? ?0 00:01:58 ? ? ? ?0 > R1(config)#do sh run | s r b > router bgp 1 > ?no synchronization > ?bgp log-neighbor-changes > ?timers bgp 10 30 3 > ?neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 2 > ?no auto-summary > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:57:26.411: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Down BGP > Notification sent > *Mar ?1 00:57:26.411: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 10.1.1.2 4/0 > (hold time expired) 0 bytes > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:57:57.859: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up > R1(config)#do sh run | s r b > router bgp 1 > ?no synchronization > ?bgp log-neighbor-changes > ?timers bgp 10 30 3 > ?neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 2 > ?no auto-summary > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:59:17.111: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Down BGP > Notification sent > *Mar ?1 00:59:17.111: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 10.1.1.2 4/0 > (hold time expired) 0 bytes > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 00:59:44.951: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up > R1(config)# > ? ?--------------------------HERE > THE SAME COMMAND SH RUN WAS USED ON R2 > *Mar ?1 01:00:13.283: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Down BGP > Notification sent > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 01:00:13.283: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 10.1.1.2 4/0 > (hold time expired) 0 bytes > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 01:00:47.719: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up > R1(config)#do sh run | s r b > router bgp 1 > ?no synchronization > ?bgp log-neighbor-changes > ?timers bgp 10 30 3 > ?neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 2 > ?no auto-summary > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 01:01:12.299: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Down BGP > Notification sent > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 01:01:12.299: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 10.1.1.2 4/0 > (hold time expired) 0 bytes > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 01:01:40.131: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up > R1(config)#do sh run | s r b > router bgp 1 > ?no synchronization > ?bgp log-neighbor-changes > ?timers bgp 10 30 3 > ?neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 2 > ?no auto-summary > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 01:01:55.675: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Down BGP > Notification sent > *Mar ?1 01:01:55.675: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 10.1.1.2 4/0 > (hold time expired) 0 bytes > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 01:02:26.547: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up > R1(config)#do sh ip bgp summ > BGP router identifier 10.1.1.1, local AS number 1 > BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > > Neighbor ? ? ? ?V ? ?AS MsgRcvd MsgSent ? TblVer ?InQ OutQ Up/Down > State/PfxRcd > 10.1.1.2 ? ? ? ?4 ? ? 2 ? ?2080 ? ?2108 ? ? ? ?1 ? ?0 ? ?0 00:00:18 ? ? ? ?0 > R1(config)#do ping 10.1.1.2 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.1.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > !!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/54/112 ms > R1(config)#do sh ip bgp summ > BGP router identifier 10.1.1.1, local AS number 1 > BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > > Neighbor ? ? ? ?V ? ?AS MsgRcvd MsgSent ? TblVer ?InQ OutQ Up/Down > State/PfxRcd > 10.1.1.2 ? ? ? ?4 ? ? 2 ? ?2125 ? ?2153 ? ? ? ?1 ? ?0 ? ?0 00:01:03 ? ? ? ?0 > R1(config)#do sh ip bgp summ > BGP router identifier 10.1.1.1, local AS number 1 > BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > > Neighbor ? ? ? ?V ? ?AS MsgRcvd MsgSent ? TblVer ?InQ OutQ Up/Down > State/PfxRcd > 10.1.1.2 ? ? ? ?4 ? ? 2 ? ?2153 ? ?2182 ? ? ? ?1 ? ?0 ? ?0 00:01:31 ? ? ? ?0 > R1(config)#! quite a lot of time nothing has happened > R1(config)#do sh ip bgp summ > BGP router identifier 10.1.1.1, local AS number 1 > BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > > Neighbor ? ? ? ?V ? ?AS MsgRcvd MsgSent ? TblVer ?InQ OutQ Up/Down > State/PfxRcd > 10.1.1.2 ? ? ? ?4 ? ? 2 ? ?2224 ? ?2252 ? ? ? ?1 ? ?0 ? ?0 00:02:41 ? ? ? ?0 > R1(config)#do sh ip bgp summ > BGP router identifier 10.1.1.1, local AS number 1 > BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > > Neighbor ? ? ? ?V ? ?AS MsgRcvd MsgSent ? TblVer ?InQ OutQ Up/Down > State/PfxRcd > 10.1.1.2 ? ? ? ?4 ? ? 2 ? ?2271 ? ?2299 ? ? ? ?1 ? ?0 ? ?0 00:03:29 ? ? ? ?0 > R1(config)#! so its 200 seconds or more but no > R1(config)#! neighbor ship reset > R1(config)#! will try that command again, the router bgp under show run > R1(config)# > R1(config)#do sh run | s r b > router bgp 1 > ?no synchronization > ?bgp log-neighbor-changes > ?timers bgp 10 30 3 > ?neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 2 > ?no auto-summary > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 01:07:01.663: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Down BGP > Notification sent > *Mar ?1 01:07:01.663: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 10.1.1.2 4/0 > (hold time expired) 0 bytes > R1(config)#! it happened again!!!!!!! > R1(config)#! > *Mar ?1 01:07:29.343: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up > R1(config)#!so any ideas please > R1(config)#do sh ip bgp summ > BGP router identifier 10.1.1.1, local AS number 1 > BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > > Neighbor ? ? ? ?V ? ?AS MsgRcvd MsgSent ? TblVer ?InQ OutQ Up/Down > State/PfxRcd > 10.1.1.2 ? ? ? ?4 ? ? 2 ? ?2576 ? ?2605 ? ? ? ?1 ? ?0 ? ?0 00:03:58 ? ? ? ?0 > R1(config)#!trying again > R1(config)#do sh ip bgp summ > BGP router identifier 10.1.1.1, local AS number 1 > BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > > Neighbor ? ? ? ?V ? ?AS MsgRcvd MsgSent ? TblVer ?InQ OutQ Up/Down > State/PfxRcd > 10.1.1.2 ? ? ? ?4 ? ? 2 ? ?2799 ? ?2828 ? ? ? ?1 ? ?0 ? ?0 00:07:41 ? ? ? ?0 > R1(config)#!trying again > R1(config)#do sh run | s r b > router bgp 1 > ?no synchronization > ?bgp log-neighbor-changes > ?timers bgp 10 30 3 > ?neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 2 > ?no auto-summary > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 01:15:36.887: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Down BGP > Notification sent > *Mar ?1 01:15:36.887: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 10.1.1.2 4/0 > (hold time expired) 0 bytes > R1(config)# > *Mar ?1 01:16:08.487: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 10.1.1.2 Up > R1(config)# > R1(config)# > > > * > ALL i want to know is can there be any logical reason to it, I think its > GNS3.* > > > > -- > thanks > gaurav > > http://routing0sand1s.blogspot.com/ > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:37:59 +1000 From: Matt Hill <[email protected]> To: "Di Bias, Steve" <[email protected]> Cc: Jay McMickle <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Roy Khan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] CCIE lab fee raised! Message-ID: <capk64eppxvtk_aacsxsextvu0r3rtdf-cedyv24tjng_qtt...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Considering exchange rates and the like it is effectively about $1k CHEAPER than what it was when I did it. Dont whinge. If you want to be a CCIE. Do it. Especially considering most people who want to sit a lab dont have have the luxury of one in their city or need to spend more than $100 on a flight to get to where the lab is. It is still FAR cheaper to do the lab in the US than what it is anywhere else. Cheers, Matt CCIE #22386 CCSI #31207 On 2 August 2011 03:46, Di Bias, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > The ROI on the CCI outweighs the increase IMHO > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob McCouch > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 10:31 AM > To: Jay McMickle > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Roy Khan > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] CCIE lab fee raised! > > It's a bit lame that the spring these changes with no notice (I can only > imagine it's to try and avoid some rush of scheduling just before the > deadline), but in the grand scheme of things no one that's serious about the > cert (and if you're on this list you're probably serious) is going to say > "screw it" over a 7.1% price increase. We've invested thousands of dollars > and countless hours in ourselves. $100 is such a pittance compared to that, > that we may complain a bit but no one is going to change their plans. > > Boiling the frog, if you will... > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Jay McMickle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It would only have saved you $100 if you would have paid for it. ?I don't >> think this affects those that have alread paid, but those like myself, that >> haven't paid and aren't within the 90 day period. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> Jay McMickle- CCNP, CCSP, CCDP, MCSE >> http://mycciepursuit.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> From: Roy Khan <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2011 10:23 AM >> Subject: RE: CCIE lab fee raised! >> >> >> I got the same email really surprise to read that email. without any notice >> they did this really cisco loss his image ?I am disappointment from ciscoo r >> Yesterday i was planning to register my lab i delayed one day and I will >> pay 100 dollar extra :@ >> >> >> >> >> > Subject: CCIE lab fee raised! >> > From: [email protected] >> > Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 06:57:11 -0500 >> > To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> > >> > Has anyone else seen this? I didn't see any prior notice, either. So, >> even >> > though we have our lab booked, it looks like we still have to pay the >> > increased fee. I'm not excited about this unannounced change. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Important Information for CCIE Lab Candidates >> > >> > Dear Cisco Certified Colleague, >> > >> > As of August 1, 2011, the price of the CCIE Lab will change from $1400 to >> > $1500 USD*. Your lab fee will be processed 90 days before your scheduled >> lab >> > date. Since payment for your lab will be processed after this date, you >> will >> > incur the new price. While you can cancel your lab date without cost, we >> hope >> > you will continue on with your certification exam to certify that you are >> one >> > of the most expert networking professionals in the world. >> > >> > We wish you best of luck in your upcoming lab, >> > Learning@Cisco >> > >> > >> > Please do not reply to this email for support. To view answers to >> commonly >> > asked questions regarding the Cisco Certification Program or to request >> > assistance related to this email, visit the Certification Online Support >> tool >> > at www.cisco.com/go/certsupport. >> > >> > *Excluding location specific taxes. >> > B) 2011 Cisco Systems, Inc. and/or its affiliated entities. All rights >> > reserved. Cisco, Cisco Systems and the Cisco Systems logo are registered >> > trademarks of Cisco Systems, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United >> States >> > and certain other countries. Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive, >> San >> > Jose, California, 95134 >> > Cisco.com | Privacy Statement | Trademarks | Unsubscribe >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > Jay McMickle- CCNP,CCSP,CCDP >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > http://mycciepursuit.wordpress.com >> > >> > >> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net >> > >> > _______________________________________________________________________ >> > Subscription information may be found at: >> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com >> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >> > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > > > UHS Confidentiality Notice: ?This e-mail message, including any attachments, > is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may contain > confidential and privileged information. ?Any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. ?If this was > sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy > all copies of the original message. > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 08:54:06 +0430 From: Muhammad Faisal Khan <[email protected]> To: Matt Hill <[email protected]> Cc: Jay McMickle <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Roy Khan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] CCIE lab fee raised! Message-ID: <CAH3_ZqLBSQeyTQKK6i+weG8gSdy25zvgMCv0D0aM9=mzrhf...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, As I already registered the lab on 27th of July and I received the email of ccie increase yesterday, now the 100 $ extra fee will be applied on those also who registered their lab in the last week of July but it is not processed yet. Regards, Faisal On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Matt Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > Considering exchange rates and the like it is effectively about $1k > CHEAPER than what it was when I did it. > > Dont whinge. If you want to be a CCIE. Do it. Especially > considering most people who want to sit a lab dont have have the > luxury of one in their city or need to spend more than $100 on a > flight to get to where the lab is. It is still FAR cheaper to do the > lab in the US than what it is anywhere else. > > Cheers, > Matt > > CCIE #22386 > CCSI #31207 > > On 2 August 2011 03:46, Di Bias, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > The ROI on the CCI outweighs the increase IMHO > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob McCouch > > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 10:31 AM > > To: Jay McMickle > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Roy Khan > > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] CCIE lab fee raised! > > > > It's a bit lame that the spring these changes with no notice (I can only > > imagine it's to try and avoid some rush of scheduling just before the > > deadline), but in the grand scheme of things no one that's serious about > the > > cert (and if you're on this list you're probably serious) is going to say > > "screw it" over a 7.1% price increase. We've invested thousands of > dollars > > and countless hours in ourselves. $100 is such a pittance compared to > that, > > that we may complain a bit but no one is going to change their plans. > > > > Boiling the frog, if you will... > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Jay McMickle <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> It would only have saved you $100 if you would have paid for it. I > don't > >> think this affects those that have alread paid, but those like myself, > that > >> haven't paid and aren't within the 90 day period. > >> > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Jay McMickle- CCNP, CCSP, CCDP, MCSE > >> http://mycciepursuit.wordpress.com/ > >> > >> > >> From: Roy Khan <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> [email protected] > >> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2011 10:23 AM > >> Subject: RE: CCIE lab fee raised! > >> > >> > >> I got the same email really surprise to read that email. without any > notice > >> they did this really cisco loss his image I am disappointment from > ciscoo r > >> Yesterday i was planning to register my lab i delayed one day and I will > >> pay 100 dollar extra :@ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Subject: CCIE lab fee raised! > >> > From: [email protected] > >> > Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 06:57:11 -0500 > >> > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > >> > > >> > Has anyone else seen this? I didn't see any prior notice, either. So, > >> even > >> > though we have our lab booked, it looks like we still have to pay the > >> > increased fee. I'm not excited about this unannounced change. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Important Information for CCIE Lab Candidates > >> > > >> > Dear Cisco Certified Colleague, > >> > > >> > As of August 1, 2011, the price of the CCIE Lab will change from $1400 > to > >> > $1500 USD*. Your lab fee will be processed 90 days before your > scheduled > >> lab > >> > date. Since payment for your lab will be processed after this date, > you > >> will > >> > incur the new price. While you can cancel your lab date without cost, > we > >> hope > >> > you will continue on with your certification exam to certify that you > are > >> one > >> > of the most expert networking professionals in the world. > >> > > >> > We wish you best of luck in your upcoming lab, > >> > Learning@Cisco > >> > > >> > > >> > Please do not reply to this email for support. To view answers to > >> commonly > >> > asked questions regarding the Cisco Certification Program or to > request > >> > assistance related to this email, visit the Certification Online > Support > >> tool > >> > at www.cisco.com/go/certsupport. > >> > > >> > *Excluding location specific taxes. > >> > B) 2011 Cisco Systems, Inc. and/or its affiliated entities. All rights > >> > reserved. Cisco, Cisco Systems and the Cisco Systems logo are > registered > >> > trademarks of Cisco Systems, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United > >> States > >> > and certain other countries. Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman > Drive, > >> San > >> > Jose, California, 95134 > >> > Cisco.com | Privacy Statement | Trademarks | Unsubscribe > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Jay McMickle- CCNP,CCSP,CCDP > >> > Sent from my iPhone > >> > http://mycciepursuit.wordpress.com > >> > > >> > > >> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________________________________ > >> > Subscription information may be found at: > >> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, > please > >> visit www.ipexpert.com > >> > >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > > > > > > UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, > use, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. If this > was sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. > > _______________________________________________ > > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > End of CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 67, Issue 5 ************************************** _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
