That about covers it Chuck,
Dont' forget "How do I fix the full/half duplex thing" ????
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Larrieu"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: Associate and Professional Email Lists [7:16217]
> let me save you the trouble. ;->
>
> 1)it is a violation to disclose whether or not ISIS is on the LAB, but you
> probably should study it anyway, if only because
>
> 2) those /32's in the routing table are supposed to be there when you have
> an OSPF network over a frame relay cloud. no, they can't be summarized on
> routers connected to the cloud.
>
> 3) it is NDA to reveal specifics about the Lab, such as the IOS version.
on
> the other hand, with Cisco releasing 12.2 these days, one might consider
> which IOS versions Cisco might think it important for CCIE's to be
familiar
> with.
>
> 4) there are only so many ways to redistribute a /28 into a /24. check the
> archives, as this has been a regular topic of discussion
>
> 5) yes, the answers that cc boot camp provides for their labs very often
> contain incorrect information. part of the challenge is to figure that out
>
> 6) as far as which of the several practice lab packages is "best" that is
> subjective
>
> 7) the CCIE list archives contain the answers to these and all the
questions
> that come up on a weekly basis.
>
> Hey, Tony, did I miss any?
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Donald B Johnson jr
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:40 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Associate and Professional Email Lists [7:16217]
>
>
> Tony I sit my written tomorrow at 3pm and if I pass I can't wait to get on
> that boring list
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Medeiros"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Associate and Professional Email Lists [7:16217]
>
>
> > Let's keep the list the same, I my opinion, The mix of cert. posts
along
> > with the real world stuff make's it interesting. Plus, it give the
> higher
> > level people a chance to help out their fellow man/women. The CCIE list
> has
> > gotten so "test" centric it's got boring.
> > I like to "take" as well as to "learn"
> > Sure your going to get low level questions. Just ignore them and let
the
> > junior guys get a "trill" out of helping another person
> >
> > Tony ME.
> > #6172.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chuck Larrieu"
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 11:31 AM
> > Subject: RE: Associate and Professional Email Lists [7:16217]
> >
> >
> > > Not that I disagree, Don, but this has been a source of annoyance for
> many
> > > folks for as long as I've been on the list ( around 2 years. )
> > >
> > > two points:
> > >
> > > 1) sometimes some of these work related scenarios provide good
learning
> > > points
> > >
> > > 2) people ask these kinds of questions on all the lists, no matter
what.
> > The
> > > CCIE list would get it's fair share of this kind of question as well.
> > >
> > > without having the list 100% moderated, with all messages being
> reviewed,
> > > there is no practical way to stop this. and sometimes there is
something
> > to
> > > be learned that is applicable to one's studies.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > > Donald B Johnson jr
> > > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 9:09 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: Associate and Professional Email Lists [7:16217]
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that if there is a split, all these questions concerning work
> > should
> > > be split out. It is supposed to be about group study not group
> consulting.
> > > Over the time that I have been here there seems to be a growing number
> of
> > > narrowly worded questions to bail someone out at work, and this
> individual
> > > doesn't even seem to consult CCO most of the time, even though they
are
> > > supporting a Cisco platform. The culture here seems to support and
> highly
> > > respect the intellectual property of others, which I whole-heartedly
> > agree,
> > > but it shows a lack of respect for those who consult for a living. I
> > > personally like giving "so called flames" to people who are looking
for
> > free
> > > consulting work to hide there apparent laziness. Just like everyone
> chimes
> > > in when someone comes here and tries to sell certzone labs gets
blasted.
> I
> > > wish that blatant " my boss wants me to set up a central frame hub and
> six
> > > spoke network what should I do" should get blasted or pointed to place
> > where
> > > people can consult for food. Paul any e-mail that has boss in it
should
> > get
> > > an automated stock reply, check CCO, call cisco, buy gear, have cisco
SE
> > set
> > > it up, have a nice day. Now I know people are going to say that this
is
> > how
> > > they learn by posting real world questions and this is true but it is
> the
> > > blatant ones that I am talking about. Oh and keep this in mind that
the
> > > people answering the these so called learning experiences didn't just
> know
> > > the answer, at some point they had to check CCO, contact Cisco, buy
> gear,
> > > work with Cisco SE, have a nice day.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 7:40 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Associate and Professional Email Lists [7:16217]
> > >
> > >
> > > > When I go on vaction I unsubscribe and then subscribe again. Would
all
> > my
> > > > messages go in the moderator's queue when I subscribed again? That
> would
> > > be
> > > > annoying for the moderator (and for me. ;-) Other than that, I think
> > it's
> > > a
> > > > good idea to have messages from a new subscriber go through the
> > moderator
> > > > for a while. As I'm sure you have considered, it's not a very
> "scalable"
> > > > idea, though.
> > > >
> > > > I hope you don't divide the group again. The general networking
> > questions
> > > > are helpful to those studying for CCNP and CCDP. The diversity of
> > messages
> > > > (except for the flames, of course) are good for learning and
represent
> > the
> > > > real world better than if we just got questions about passing
scores,
> > etc.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again for all you do for us!
> > > >
> > > > Priscilla
> > > >
> > > > At 12:02 PM 8/17/01, Paul Borghese wrote:
> > > > >With an open group, you are going to have your share of noise.
> > > Everyone's
> > > > >ides of noise is different. For example, to many this very e-mail
is
> > > noise
> > > > >because it is not directly on subject.
> > > > >
> > > > >But there are some things we can do to help lessen the noise. They
> are
> > > on
> > > > >my to-do list, just have been too busy.:
> > > > >
> > > > >1. Comprehensive FAQ - we need a new faq that can answer the
> questions
> > > that
> > > > >are asked over and over again.
> > > > >
> > > > >2. Split out the professional group from the general networking
> group.
> > > > >
> > > > >3. Setup a system where new users can not post directly to the
> group -
> > > This
> > > > >is the most difficult of the three ideas and will require
substantial
> > > > >coding. What I want is to have a system where when an e-mail
arrives
> > (or
> > > > >from the newsfeed or website), if the poster has not been approved,
> it
> > > gets
> > > > >bounced into the moderators queue. If the moderator (actually we
> will
> > > have
> > > > >many) agrees that the message is appropriate, the moderator will
> allow
> > > the
> > > > >message to pass. Plus if the moderator feels that the poster will
> > > continue
> > > > >to send interesting and valuable e-mails, the moderator can place
the
> > > user
> > > > >in the "automatic approval" category so future e-mails will not
need
> to
> > > be
> > > > >approved. The goal is to bounce new messages from first time
> posters,
> > > but
> > > > >allow the old-timers to post without moderation. Thus filtering
the
> > new
> > > > >user asking inappropriate questions and the occasional spam.
> > > > >
> > > > >Take care,
> > > > >
> > > > >Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "John Neiberger"
> > > > >To:
> > > > >Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 6:05 PM
> > > > >Subject: Re: Associate and Professional Email Lists [7:16217]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, Paul did do a good job cutting down that traffic. I just
> > noticed
> > > > > > that in the last month or so there has been a slew of *really*
> basic
> > > > > > questions that can be answered in the first two or three
chapters
> of
> > > any
> > > > > > decent CCNA study guide or by a 30 second search on CCO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I certainly don't mind answering these types of questions, I was
> > just
> > > > > > concerned that the purpose of the two separate lists was being
> > > > > > undermined, causing a lot of unnecessary traffic. To me it's no
> > > > > > different than posting jobs on the Associate or Professional
> lists.
> > > It
> > > > > > may reach some of the right people, but it's not the appropriate
> > place
> > > > > > to post that type of information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> "Tom Lisa" 8/15/01 3:19:55 PM >>>
> > > > > > Yes, John, there is an Associate list. We have a similar
problem
> > > > > > there as well. People keep insisting on asking CCNP/CCIE level
> > > > > > questions on that list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, people being the way they are, I doubt we will ever
> > > > > > solve the problem completely. But, you got to admit that Paul
> > > > > > at least cut down on the volume of CCNA level traffic on this
> list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Prof. Tom Lisa, CCAI
> > > > > > Community College of Southern Nevada
> > > > > > Cisco Regional Networking Academy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John Neiberger wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Excuse me for this rant. I'm not trying to be the content
cop,
> I
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > wanted to make an observation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we no longer have an Associate list as well as the
> Professional
> > > > > > list? We've been getting horrendous numbers of emails lately
> that
> > > > > > simply do not belong on this list. If you don't know how to
> > connect
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > PC to a router using the console cable or how to connect two
> > routers
> > > > > > back-to-back, it seems to me that you should ask those types
of
> > > > > > questions on the CCNA-level list, not the CCNP-level list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not intending to come down too hard on people asking these
> > > > > > questions, I'm just asking that you post to the appropriate
> list.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > Associate mailing list is intended for the simpler questions,
> > while
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Professional list is intended for those with slighly more
> advanced
> > > > > > questions. I understand that we tend to grant a *lot* of
leeway
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > comes to subject matter, but the level of the question should
> > still
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > appropriate to the list it's posted to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay, enough ranting. :-) Back to our regular
programming....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > John
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > ________________________
> > > >
> > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > > > http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16692&t=16217
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
