>Brian, I just wanted to say publicly that this was an outstanding test
>question. outstanding because of all the red herrings it contained, as we
>saw from the wild guess responses.
Sir, after several trips to Scandinavia, I find it hard to believe
that any sensible tester would use more than one red (presumably
tomato-sauced) herring. There are wide range of herring to pick
from, including the basic wine-pickled, mustard, sour cream, etc., to
say nothing of the cooked dishes containing herring.
It is also important not to confuse herrings with lemmings, which are
excellent simulators either for marketingdroids or those led by
marketingdroids. Perhaps they have even more simulation
capabilities; I find many of the attempts to coerce things into a
concept of the OSI model that is long obsolete, or insist that one or
another term is correct because a review book says so in
contradiction of the actual standards.
Howard
>
>so everyone knows, my own private reply was incorrect as well. doh!
>
>thanks for this - these kinds of challenges are what make groupstudy
>worthwhile to me at least.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Brian
>Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:51 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus.... [7:16635]) [7:16659]
>
>
>On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Cisco Lover wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys..
>>
>> Come with some New Queston..
>
>hmm, ok, so your looking for some challenging questions? Ok, I will post
>one, its got FR in it. First I'll post the problem, followed by the
>config:
>
>THE PROBLEM
>===========
>Users on DLCI's 200, 224, 201, 225 cannot communicate to eachother. They
>can talk just fine to the rest of the network, but no packets can pass
>between them. Later discovery reveals that so long as they are on
>different layer 3 network addressing, communcation can occur, but if they
>are on the same network, such as 192.168.3.0, then they cannot communicate
>
>What is the problem? I will reply to let everyone know who got the
>correct answer.
>
>Below is the configuration:
>
>!
>version 11.3
>!
>interface Ethernet2/0
> ip address 192.168.1.242 255.255.255.0
>!
>interface Serial4/0
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay IETF
> keepalive 15
> frame-relay map bridge 200 broadcast IETF
> frame-relay map bridge 224 broadcast IETF
> frame-relay map bridge 201 broadcast IETF
> frame-relay map bridge 225 broadcast IETF
> frame-relay lmi-type ansi
> bridge-group 1
>!
>interface BVI1
> ip address 192.168.3.242 255.255.255.0 secondary
> ip address 192.168.2.242 255.255.255.0
>
>!
>router igrp 1
> network 192.1.0.0
> network 192.2.0.0
> network 193.3.0.0
>!
>ip classless
>!
>bridge irb
> bridge 1 protocol ieee
> bridge 1 route ip
>!
>
>
>>
>> For eg,
>> our FR switch is setup for Full mesh,But out network is setup as Hub &
>Spoke
>> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------
> I'm buying / selling used CISCO gear!!
> email me for a quote
>
>Brian Feeny, CCIE #8036 Scarlett Parria
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>318-213-4709 318-213-4701
>
>Netjam, LLC http://www.netjam.net
>333 Texas St. VISA/MC/AMEX/COD
>Suite 1401 30 day warranty
>Shreveport, LA 71101 Cisco Channel Partner
>toll free: 866-2NETJAM
>phone: 318-212-0245
>fax: 318-212-0246
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=17112&t=17112
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
