On May 31, 8:23pm, anthony kim wrote:
} --- John Nemeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
} > On Jul 7, 4:07am, "Fowler, Robert J." wrote:
} > }
} > } However it might be a good choice for someone who is building a
} > home lab. It
} > } is much cheaper to piece together some computers and throw zebra
} > on it than
} > } to buy several routers. I've never used Zebra but it sounds like
} > if you had
} > } some existing equipment and wanted to expand on that, couldn't
} > afford to buy
} > } another router but had some old PC's it would be the way to go,
} > since
} > } speed/reliability wouldn't be a real factor in a home lab. Any
} > thoughts?
} >
} > Although, you may learn something about the protocols, you
} > won't
} > learn anything about real routers. You definitely need to get
} > hands on
} > with real routers. Zebra could be used to simulate a secondary
} > router
} > in a multi-router experiment, but it isn't sufficient by itself.
}
} Is a real router a device which routes layer 3 packets? Or a device
} "specifically designed" to route layer 3 packets. Your statement
} implies the latter. Whereas I believe the former.
The latter. A PC make be able to route packets, but that doesn't
make it a real router. The hardware device is going to be faster
(especially at the high end), more reliable, require much less
maintenance (which makes it cheaper in the long run), and easier to
install and setup (not to mention take up far less space). I'm a huge
fan of UNIX and will tend to run just about everything on UNIX systems,
but even I realise that UNIX host based systems are not the correct
solution for every problem.
} You *will* learn about real routers because the pc is a real router.
} You may *not learn* anything about IOS or $VENDOR's routers.
That is the purpose of getting Cisco certs...
}-- End of excerpt from anthony kim
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
