I started reading it but soon realized it was a waste of time. On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Matt Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't know this guy. What I do know is he posts a lot of 5h17 about how > every CCIE in the world is a cheat and yet he has taken about 18 attempts > and got nowhere. He can GGF as far as I'm concerned. > > Cheers, > Matt > > CCIE #22386 > CCSI #31207 > > On Friday, 18 May 2012, Thomas Raabo - Zitcom A/S wrote: > > > Even mr Cisco Russ White is no more. > > > > Thomas > > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > > Fra: [email protected] <javascript:;> [mailto: > > [email protected] <javascript:;>] På vegne af Ken Wyan > > Sendt: 18. maj 2012 07:18 > > Til: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > Emne: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] CCIE how to pass the lab (light humour) > > > > 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 < > > > > ------+---------------------------------+--+--- > > > >> ----+-- > > > >> 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> >>> _____ 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] <javascript:;>> > > > > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > > > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] WB-1 LAB-17 TASK-17.3 > > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > > > <CADFAz+6e2xs2+a-=5E=6eJTxKM7nMUdxkyezaSyfQLkeSxVz=w...@mail.gmail.com > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
