Didn't we have a filter on this group mail to prevent such idiots from posting this kind of negative nonsense!
Cheers, Ehab On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Ehab Koronfol <[email protected]> wrote: > didn't we have a filter on this group mail to prevent such idiots from > posting this kind of negative nonsense! > > Cheers, > Ehab > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:02 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
