Thanks for sharing.

This is more or less what's hapenning everywhere. These type of marketing
guys dominate cisco also & those with good practical experience slowly quit
due to these jokers.

Finally , Cisco products are full of defects. Smallest bugs remain
unresolved for a series of releases.

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Tony Singh <[email protected]> wrote:

> This article is good humour, enjoy
>
> http://ccieflyer.com/2010-02-Darby-Weaver-Achilles-Heel.php
>
> BR
>
> Tony
>
> CCNP CCNA R&S JNCIS-SEC MCSE
>
> Sent from my iPhone on 3
>
> On 17 May 2012, at 17:00, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > 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: ? (Adam Booth)
> >   2. Re: Interworking in L2VPN (CCIE KID)
> >   3. WB-1 LAB-17 TASK-17.3 (Ren? Huet)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 06:46:35 +1000
> > From: Adam Booth <[email protected]>
> > To: "Bodnar, Edward" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] ?
> > Message-ID:
> >    <CAKXsBmpn4KoO45ybp-3=pd31hmpsext-bw28_h1ck2l5ltc...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Hi Edward,
> >
> > The Switch adds these via option 82 to the DHCP packet made by a DHCP
> > client, so the DHCP server can make some decisions as to what to do with
> > that user.  Generally Circuit-Id is used to identify the originating
> switch
> > and switch port that the customer is connected to, and the remote-id may
> be
> > a service id/customer id.
> >
> > Depending on your context you could use the Circuit-Id/Remote-Id to
> always
> > allocate a specific IP address to a Switch port regardless as to what the
> > mac address of the client device is.
> >
> > In a situation where the network infrastructure owner is different to the
> > service owner (e.g. a wholesale environment) the infrastructure owner may
> > move ports associated with a customer around - so the wholesale operator
> in
> > a lot of instances is told to rely on using the remote-id and not the
> > circuit-id to identify their client (but knowing the circuit-id may be
> > useful if there is a fault)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Bodnar, Edward <
> [email protected]>wrote:
> >
> >> Can anybody provide some clarity around these commands.
> >>
> >> Ip dhcp snooping information option format-type ( circuit-id |
> remote-id )
> >>
> >>
> >> Need info on what they do and why I would use them.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 <http://www.platinumplacement.com/>
> >>
> >> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:45:36 +0530
> > From: CCIE KID <[email protected]>
> > To: Mohammad Khalil <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Interworking in L2VPN
> > Message-ID:
> >    <CAJuc+Q9ZzpE48kSd3YE=y2kshay5e5x9ovuhn9gykblhzhk...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Thanks Mohammad,
> >
> > What are the parameters to match when u want to form a Targeted LDP peer
> > between two PE's if u have two different VC Types in them.
> > For example on one side u have Ethernet and on the other side u have FR.
> > What are the parameters to match on both the sides .
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Mohammad Khalil <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi , i did a similar setup using xconnect between EThernet and ATM ,
> >> please find below (note that TESTING1 is connected to PE1 through NSP
> and
> >> TESTING2 is connected to PE2)
> >>
> >> TESTING1
> >>
> >> interface ATM0
> >> description *** TEC-TEC2 ATM 5/7 ***
> >> no ip address
> >> no atm ilmi-keepalive
> >> dsl operating-mode ansi-dmt
> >> end
> >> interface ATM0.1 point-to-point
> >> ip address 172.16.18.98 255.255.255.252
> >> pvc 2/222
> >> protocol ip 172.16.18.97 broadcast
> >> !
> >> interface ATM0.2 point-to-point
> >> ip address 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.252
> >> pvc 30/30
> >> protocol ip 10.10.10.1 broadcast
> >>
> >> TESTING2
> >>
> >> interface FastEthernet0/0
> >> no ip address
> >> duplex full
> >> speed 100
> >> interface FastEthernet0/0.94
> >> encapsulation dot1Q 94
> >> ip address 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.252
> >> !
> >> interface FastEthernet0/0.99
> >> encapsulation dot1Q 99
> >> ip address 172.16.18.97 255.255.255.252
> >>
> >> PE1
> >>
> >> interface GigabitEthernet2/1/0
> >> mtu 1530
> >> ip address 62.215.0.49 255.255.255.252
> >> ip ospf network point-to-point
> >> negotiation auto
> >> mpls ip
> >> end
> >> interface ATM2/0/0
> >> description *** ATM STM-1 Link To 6400-TEC ( ATM3/1/0 ) ***
> >> no ip address
> >> load-interval 30
> >> no atm enable-ilmi-trap
> >> no atm ilmi-keepalive
> >> pvc 0/5 qsaal
> >> !
> >> pvc 0/16 ilmi
> >> !
> >> End
> >> interface ATM2/0/0.2020 point-to-point
> >> no atm enable-ilmi-trap
> >> pvc 12/195 l2transport
> >> encapsulation aal5snap
> >> xconnect 62.215.0.222 133 pw-class inter-ether
> >>
> >> PE2
> >>
> >> interface GigabitEthernet0/1
> >> mtu 1530
> >> ip address 62.215.0.50 255.255.255.252
> >> ip ospf network point-to-point
> >> media-type sfp
> >> speed auto
> >> duplex auto
> >> negotiation auto
> >> mpls ip
> >>
> >> interface GigabitEthernet0/3
> >> mtu 4470
> >> no ip address
> >> media-type rj45
> >> speed auto
> >> duplex full
> >> negotiation auto
> >> end
> >> interface GigabitEthernet0/3.99
> >> encapsulation dot1Q 99
> >> xconnect 62.215.0.194 133 pw-class inter-ether
> >>
> >> PE2#sh xconnect all
> >> Legend: XC ST=Xconnect State S1=Segment1 State S2=Segment2 State
> >> UP=Up DN=Down AD=Admin Down IA=Inactive
> >> SB=Standby RV=Recovering NH=No Hardware
> >> XC ST Segment 1 S1 Segment 2
> >> S2
> >>
> ------+---------------------------------+--+-----------------------------
> >> ----+--
> >> UP ac Gi0/3.99:99(Eth VLAN) UP mpls 62.215.0.194:133
> >> UP
> >>
> >> PE2#sh xconnect peer 62.215.0.194 all detail
> >> Core network division
> >> Xconnect test
> >> Distribution: Confidential Page 5
> >> Legend: XC ST=Xconnect State S1=Segment1 State S2=Segment2 State
> >> UP=Up DN=Down AD=Admin Down IA=Inactive
> >> SB=Standby RV=Recovering NH=No Hardware
> >> XC ST Segment 1 S1 Segment 2
> >> S2
> >>
> ------+---------------------------------+--+-----------------------------
> >> ----+--
> >> UP ac Gi0/3.99:99(Eth VLAN) UP mpls 62.215.0.194:133
> >> UP
> >> Interworking: ip Local VC label 276
> >> Remote VC label 3090
> >> pw-class: inter-ether
> >>
> >> TEC-TEST#sh mpls l2transport binding 133
> >> Destination Address: 62.215.0.194, VC ID: 133
> >> Local Label: 276
> >> Cbit: 1, VC Type: IP, GroupID: 0
> >> MTU: 4470, Interface Desc: n/a
> >> VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
> >> CV Type: LSPV [2]
> >> Remote Label: 3090
> >> Cbit: 1, VC Type: IP, GroupID: 0
> >> MTU: 4470, Interface Desc: n/a
> >> VCCV: CC Type: RA [2]
> >> CV Type: LSPV [2]
> >> TEC-TEST#sh mpls l2transport vc 133 detail
> >> Local interface: Gi0/3.99 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 99 up
> >> MPLS VC type is Eth VLAN, interworking type is IP
> >> Destination address: 62.215.0.194, VC ID: 133, VC status: up
> >> Output interface: Gi0/1, imposed label stack {3090}
> >> Preferred path: not configured
> >> Default path: active
> >> Next hop: 62.215.0.49
> >> Create time: 03:55:11, last status change time: 03:55:11
> >> Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 62.215.0.194:0 up
> >> Targeted Hello: 62.215.0.222(LDP Id) -> 62.215.0.194
> >> Status TLV support (local/remote) : enabled/supported
> >> Label/status state machine : established, LruRru
> >> Last local dataplane status rcvd: no fault
> >> Last local SSS circuit status rcvd: no fault
> >> Last local SSS circuit status sent: no fault
> >> Last local LDP TLV status sent: no fault
> >> Last remote LDP TLV status rcvd: no fault
> >> MPLS VC labels: local 276, remote 3090
> >> Group ID: local 0, remote 0
> >> MTU: local 4470, remote 4470
> >> Remote interface description:
> >> Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
> >> VC statistics:
> >> packet totals: receive 1034, send 1034
> >> byte totals: receive 1066540, send 1089288
> >> packet drops: receive 0, seq error 0, send 0
> >> Core network division
> >> Xconnect test
> >> Distribution: Confidential Page 6
> >> PING
> >> TESTING2#ping 172.16.18.98 repeat 1000 size 1500
> >> Type escape sequence to abort.
> >> Sending 1000, 1500-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.18.98, timeout is 2
> seconds:
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> Success rate is 100 percent (1000/1000), round-trip min/avg/max =
> >> 40/43/60 ms
> >>
> >> BR,
> >> Mohammad
> >>
> >>> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:53:17 +0530
> >>> Subject: Interworking in L2VPN
> >>> From: [email protected]
> >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> I have a scenario where my Frame-Relay to Ethernet interworking is not
> >>> working properly. Can someone tell me what are all the parameters to
> >> match
> >>> when forming a T-LDP Pseudowire to be established between Ethernet one
> >> side
> >>> of pseudowire and Frame Relay on the other side of Pseudowire.
> >>> I know that there are certain parameters to match to make my Pseudowire
> >>> T-LDP up
> >>> The parameters are :
> >>> 1.VC-ID
> >>> 2.VC <http://2.vc/> Type ( Port, VLAN, etc)
> >>> 3.Interface MTU (AC)
> >>> 4. LDP password
> >>>
> >>> But when u have interworking configured on both sides , Ur VC Type wont
> >>> be matched on both the sides. In this cases, how will my T-LDP session
> >> will
> >>> be up ?
> >>>
> >>> How will the Control plane signaling happens when there is a different
> VC
> >>> types on both sides and i have configured my Interworking on both the
> >> sides.
> >>>
> >>> How will the router signal the other end of the peer to know which VC
> >> Type
> >>> it is using and also the Interworking has been configured ?
> >>>
> >>> Is the use of Control Word comes into picture here ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> With Warmest Regards,
> >>>
> >>> CCIE KID
> >>> CCIE#29992 (Security)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________________________________
> >>> Subscription information may be found at:
> >>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > With Warmest Regards,
> >
> > CCIE KID
> > CCIE#29992 (Security)
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 09:53:08 +0200
> > From: Ren? Huet <[email protected]>
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] WB-1 LAB-17 TASK-17.3
> > Message-ID:
> >    <CADFAz+6e2xs2+a-=5E=6eJTxKM7nMUdxkyezaSyfQLkeSxVz=w...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > For the WB-1 LAB-17 TASK-17.3
> >
> > Why we don't deny any 150.100.78.8
> > what is the difference between deny any 150.100.78.8 or Network address?
> >
> > Normally if I deny any 150.100.78.8 (NVI) is ok no ?
> >
> > If anyone has an explanation I'm interested
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Ren?
> >
> >
> > End of CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 76, Issue 48
> > ***************************************
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <http://www.platinumplacement.com/>
>
> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
>
_______________________________________________
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

http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs

Reply via email to