sorry guys . but i was a bit fed up with Darby . back to work ..now On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Jay McMickle <[email protected]>wrote:
> Wow, Imran. That was a bit harsh! He mentioned it as a joke. > > Regards, > Jay McMickle- CCIE #35355 (R&S) > Sent from iJay > > On May 19, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Imran Ali <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Tony , why dont you follow Darby , and quit if you are that much impressd > > by his non-sense . > > > > This froum is for techincal people , please post technical questions or > > simply stay away > > > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 5:25 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://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 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://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
