Gotcha. I too am working on my second IE (Securty), but I'm not an IPT guy. You may have a valid point- I can't speak G711, only G729. ;)
Regards, Jay McMickle- CCIE #35355 (R&S) Sent from iJay On May 18, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Ken Wyan <[email protected]> wrote: > Jay, > > I am from IPT background. Already completed CCIE Voice sometime back. Now > working on 2nd CCIE > > It's not my atttitude , but the truth after discussing with many people. > When we try to convince customers to go for Cisco , sometimes vendors like > Avaya are better than Cisco. Cisco always come with innovative technologies > first & other competitors can't. But stability / bugs , etc.. are not well > addressed in Cisco IPT compared to others. (As a partner we have to have > more visits to customers & our managers are worried about this). I believe > cisco doesn't pay enough attention to such things. Cisco support team (TAC) > is somehow the best in Voice. > > I think Cisco Routers are the best in the world. Nobody else can reach that > level. > > CCIE lab is too hard & that's why people try to use dumps (even IPX > mock-labs were designed to cover questions very similar to actual > lab otherwise IPX students can't clear CCIE) . If cisco can reduce the > difficulty level & introduce a large question pool that would be nice & > dump companies have to close then. I think it's going to happen as CCIE > program managers mentioned. > > Thanks > > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Jay McMickle <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Ken- >> Wow- with that attitude, I would wonder why you would be pursuing such an >> elite certification. Dumps alone will not get anyone to pass. >> >> Oh, and keep in mind that Darby is bitter due to his multiple failed >> attempts since 2002. Jus sayin'. >> >> Regards, >> Jay McMickle- CCIE #35355 (R&S) >> Sent from iJay >> >> On May 18, 2012, at 2:00 AM, Thomas Raabo - Zitcom A/S <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Even mr Cisco Russ White is no more. >>> >>> Thomas >>> >>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>> Fra: [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] På vegne af Ken Wyan >>> Sendt: 18. maj 2012 07:18 >>> Til: [email protected] >>> 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 < >>>> [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://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/> <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://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://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://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
