The bottom line is that gleaning technical information from a course outline is not advisable. Saying that they made inaccurate statements is ridiculous. They didn't make any statements at all. There aren't even any verbs. It is a course outline, for heaven't sake! It's not even a categorization of concepts. It's a description of what will be covered and the names of the modules. The theme of the particular module is probably overhead traffic (both broadcast and multicast).
Sorry, but this one is still bothering me. I can't believe how stupid we get sometimes on this list. ;-) But, if we insist on still trying to get something real out of this discussion, then the real advice is be careful with what you find on the Internet. Priscilla At 02:14 PM 6/22/02, Kevin Cullimore wrote: >withinline >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian Backer" >To: >Sent: 18 June 2002 7:40 pm >Subject: RE: STP BPDUs [7:46839] > > > > Priscilla, > > > > Quite defensive. Calm down... I was just explaining where I found my > > information from. I know they are no idiots and that they know exactly > > what they are talking about > >It would be difficult to make that claim on behalf of ALL of them based upon >your thread of posts. > >It probably is indicative of something that, even in an economy as dismal >for the employee as the current one, the notion of all members of a given >corporate entity being well-versed in that organization's core competencies >doesn't scale beyond the smallest of sustainable organizations. > >We're also probably going to have to rennounce the ideal whereby the >"talent" are involved with, and sign off on, all aspect of a given IT >training curriculum. I'm almost more than certain that people on the list >formerly involved in producing vendor-sanctioned cisco training materials >would NOT want to be associated with the entirety of the end product once it >meandered its way through the rest of the evil corporate empire(I apologize >that I lack the imagination required to formulate an original way of >expressing that notion). > >The sad reality is that someone NOT teaching the class prepared the >advertising blurb under discussion. If that is not the case, nrf brought a >mighty compelling point to bear. > > >and I certainly wasn't trying to defame them > > then in any way. > > > > However, you are wrong about you generalization statement. If they were > > generalizing, they would have put those in the section titled "IP > > Multicasting" regardless if it's "IP" or not. > >I'm unable to find a generalization statement in the post you're replying >to. What I DO find is an observation concerning common practices surrounding >data communications technology instruction. Whether or not those practices >occur is NOT subject to their lack of correspondence to a temporally linear >sequence of events wherein more general concepts are introduced prior to the >ones they subsume. Please note that none of these issues depend on the >validity or lack thereof of the order you allude to. Educational efficacy >may or may not correspond to such a descriptively compact methodology. > >Specifically, an assertion that instructors tend to start off with a >well-known (as, obviously, contrasted with well-UNDERSTOOD) concept such as >broadcast as a means of more readily achienving some semblance of >understanding when they then move on to multicast, as well as the assertion >that that strategy may have been in play here, are NOT invalidated by the >observation that if the instructor wished to talk about a more general >phenomenon before discussing a special case, that they would not have >succeeded by following the strategy referred to above. > > >I personally think it was > > a mistake which really doesn't warrant any further discussion, > >I'm in agreement that the original profound misunderstanding of proprietary >technology & spanning tree does not warrant further comment, unlike the >meta-issues subsequently elicited. > > >however, > > according to their reply in an email I sent them, I wonder.... > > B > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 6:49 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: STP BPDUs [7:46839] > > > > At 05:58 PM 6/18/02, nrf wrote: > > >There it is, I did not engage in a rush to judgment > > > > It was still a rush. ;-) > > > > >, PMG really are idiots. > > > > Why don't you both take the class and see for yourselves? Judging > > someone > > on an outline is awfully superficial. The founder of Pine Mountain Group > > > > has been doing protocol analysis since the early 1980s. I'm sure he > > knows > > what he's doing. > > > > Many experts would bundle multicasts and broadcasts together in an > > informal, overview discussion. I'm sure if you take the class, they will > > > > explain that CDP, BPDU, and HSRP Hellos are really sent to a multicast > > destination, and that should improve performance. Since their classes > > are > > protocol analysis classes, you'll see for yourself what is used in the > > destination MAC address field. > > > > By the way, I say "should improve performance," but it might not. A lot > > of > > NICs are stupid about multicasts and take them all in even if the > > applications have not registered to receive them. In other words, they > > interrupt the host CPU for irrelevant multicasts. So when talking about > > network performance in a non-detailed fashion, it's OK to group > > broadcasts > > and multicasts. > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > > > >""Brian Backer"" wrote in message > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Priscilla, > > > > > > > > Please see: > > > > > > > > http://www.pmg.com/nai_wireless.htm > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf > > Of > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 5:06 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: STP BPDUs [7:46839] > > > > > > > > At 04:43 PM 6/18/02, nrf wrote: > > > > >""Brian Backer"" wrote in message > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > > I totally believe you all...just I used to Think that Pine > > > > > > Mountain group knew what they were talking about and their > > > > > > web site classifies all of the below as bcast. perhaps > > > > > > I'll let them know :) > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > > > > >Well, then the Pine Mountain Group are a bunch of incompetent > > idiots. > > > > > > > > I've been running into Pine Mountain Group for many years and > > slightly > > > > know > > > > the founder Bill Alderson. They do good work and they do know their > > > > stuff. > > > > I doubt they actually made this mistake, but if they did, then it's > > just > > > > a > > > > mistake of overgeneralizing. Perhaps they only have 2 categories, > > > > broadcast > > > > and unicast, and don't consider multicasts. > > > > > > > > I know I'm normally the one to get all outraged by stupid mistakes, > > but > > > > until we can actually see a URL that points to a mistake made by > > Pine > > > > Mountain Group, we should reserve judgement. I can't find anything > > on > > > > their > > > > Web site that says that BPDUs, CDP, or HSRP hellos go to a broadcast > > > > rather > > > > than a multicast. In fact, I can't find anything on their site at > > all > > > > that > > > > doesn't require a login! ;-) > > > > > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > > > > > > > >I don't want to be mean and harsh. But any company that claims to > > > > provide > > > > >expert network services, especially expert training, really should > > know > > > > >their protocols. Or at least have the decency to admit that they > > > > don't > > > > >know. Stating something that is just flatly wrong is simply > > > > unforgiveable, > > > > >especially when it's so easy to look up. > > > > ________________________ > > > > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > > > http://www.priscilla.com > > ________________________ > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > http://www.priscilla.com ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47208&t=46839 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
