Same here. 


Johan Bornman
Integrated Systems Consulting (Pty) Ltd
Cell: 082 783 3635

On 18 May 2012, at 16:03, Jason Maynard <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
_______________________________________________
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