Distribute-list with Extended ACL [7:47920]
Hi, I have an e.g. on neighbor distribute list with Extended ACL (2 lines in total) but I'm not too sure whether I'm heading the right way... access-list 101 permit ip 131.108.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0 In this line, I understand that since the wildcard mask for both network & mask are 0.0.0.0, it means that it will permit only 131.108.0.0 /24 access-list 101 deny ip 131.108.0.0 0.0.255.255 255.255.0.0 0.0.255.255 So does this mean it will deny 131.108.0.1 to 131.108.255.254, while the prefix being deny is between /16 - /32. Am I correct?? Thanks for your help again. Best Regards, Hunt Lee Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47920&t=47920 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT - Networkers, Orlando [7:47921]
I will be there and would like to meet up with any members. Phil >= Original Message From "R. Benjamin Kessler" = >Anyone from the list going? Is there going to be a GroupStudy >gathering? >_ >Commercial lab list: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/commercial.html >Please discuss commercial lab solutions on this list. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47921&t=47921 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Confusion: Channelized and Unchannelized T1 [7:47844]
I think the main thing to note about cT1s is bit robbed signalling i.e channel asscociated signalling normally used to transport voice. Therefore, we've got 7 bits of payload, 1 bit for signalling for every timeslot and 1 bit for framing. Bit robbed signalling would effectively yield a 56 kbps pipe as opposed to 64 kbps offered by ISDN PRI. However, 64 kbps (1 timeslot) of the 24 timeslots is used for signalling. This is also known as common channel signalling. As I understand it, there are three major types of services riding on T1 links: 1. Pure data T1 i.e. unchannelized T1 2. Channelized T1 and 3. ISDN PRI Wes ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I think a channelized T1 sends 193 bit frames as well. 8 for each channel > plus 1 for timing = 193. > > All T1's are channelized, otherwise it would have to be some sort of > byte-synch communication, which isn't plausible. > > I think the tech you spoke to is incorrect as well. > > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Just when I thought I understood the T1 world pretty well we've run into > > a situation that is thoroughly confusing me. > > > > I was under the impression that channelized T1 services used 24 > > timeslots. I call that 'channelized' because it has 24 distinct > > 'channels'. It's my understanding that unchannelized T1 doesn't use the > > 24 timeslots and instead sends one giant 192-bit frame. > > > > At one of our locations we are muxing voice and data traffic onto a > > single T1. At each end we split off certain channels to a router and > > other channels over to the PBX. To do this, wouldn't the T1 *have* to > > be channelized, since we're separating the channels at the CSU/DSU? > > According to our provider, that circuit is unchannelized. If a circuit > > is truly unchannelized, how would the CSU/DSU be able to accurately > > split the T1 into two separate streams based on channel information? > > > > To be more clear, let's say we have the CSU/DSU configured to split > > channels 1-12 to the router and 13-24 to the PBX. This splitting > > function is based on the assumption that channels exist on the incoming > > T1. If they don't exist and we have one giant frame instead of 24 > > smaller frames, how could this possibly be working?? > > > > Yowza...my head hurts. > > > > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47922&t=47844 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCNA Exam [7:47925]
Hi all Im going to sit for CCNA soon , would you give me the address of some usefull sites Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47925&t=47925 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCNA Exam [7:47923]
Hi all Im going to sit for CCNA soon , would you give me the address of some usefull sites Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47923&t=47923 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCNA Exam [7:47924]
Hi all Im going to sit for CCNA soon , would you give me the address of some usefull sites Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47924&t=47924 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unity question [7:47917]
the Message waiting thing is the lamp on a phone that lights up indicating you have voicemail. I have no idea what a dual phones system is. -- RFC 1149 Compliant. ""supernet"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > What means "dual phone system"? Is it traditional phone system and IP > phone system in the same environment? > > What are "MessageWaitingOffDN" and "MessageWaitingOnDN" used for? I > understand when dial those DNs, the LED on IP phone will light up or > off, but why do we want this function? > > Thanks. > Yoshi Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47926&t=47917 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Confusion: Channelized and Unchannelized T1 [7:47844]
I think even a "pure data" T1 is channelized. Even the PRI is as well. -- RFC 1149 Compliant. ""Wesley"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I think the main thing to note about cT1s is bit robbed signalling i.e > channel asscociated signalling normally used to transport voice. Therefore, > we've got 7 bits of payload, 1 bit for signalling for every timeslot and 1 > bit for framing. Bit robbed signalling would effectively yield a 56 kbps > pipe as opposed to 64 kbps offered by ISDN PRI. However, 64 kbps (1 > timeslot) of the 24 timeslots is used for signalling. This is also known as > common channel signalling. As I understand it, there are three major types > of services riding on T1 links: > > 1. Pure data T1 i.e. unchannelized T1 > 2. Channelized T1 and > 3. ISDN PRI > > Wes > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I think a channelized T1 sends 193 bit frames as well. 8 for each channel > > plus 1 for timing = 193. > > > > All T1's are channelized, otherwise it would have to be some sort of > > byte-synch communication, which isn't plausible. > > > > I think the tech you spoke to is incorrect as well. > > > > > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Just when I thought I understood the T1 world pretty well we've run into > > > a situation that is thoroughly confusing me. > > > > > > I was under the impression that channelized T1 services used 24 > > > timeslots. I call that 'channelized' because it has 24 distinct > > > 'channels'. It's my understanding that unchannelized T1 doesn't use the > > > 24 timeslots and instead sends one giant 192-bit frame. > > > > > > At one of our locations we are muxing voice and data traffic onto a > > > single T1. At each end we split off certain channels to a router and > > > other channels over to the PBX. To do this, wouldn't the T1 *have* to > > > be channelized, since we're separating the channels at the CSU/DSU? > > > According to our provider, that circuit is unchannelized. If a circuit > > > is truly unchannelized, how would the CSU/DSU be able to accurately > > > split the T1 into two separate streams based on channel information? > > > > > > To be more clear, let's say we have the CSU/DSU configured to split > > > channels 1-12 to the router and 13-24 to the PBX. This splitting > > > function is based on the assumption that channels exist on the incoming > > > T1. If they don't exist and we have one giant frame instead of 24 > > > smaller frames, how could this possibly be working?? > > > > > > Yowza...my head hurts. > > > > > > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47927&t=47844 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Confusion: Channelized and Unchannelized T1 [7:47844]
Hi John Thought I would just add a few words from 'T1 A survival guide' from O'Reilly. T1 = DS1 delivered over a 4 wire copper interface DS1 = Digital Stream level 1 - 24 DS0's combined into a DS1 which supplies 1536 kbps connectivity plus 8 kbps framing and signalling overhead for a total of 1544kbps. DS0 = A single 64kbps channel. p149 - "Each time slot in the T1 has the capacity to support one traditional telephone call. Channelised T1 does exactly this - each of the 24 time slots can be treated as a digital telephone line. Each line has a 64kbps raw capacity, but since a byte must be used for signalling the maximum thoughput of a cT1 channel is 56kbps. On ther otherhand unchannelised T1 simply views each time slot as the opporunity to send another 8bits of data to the remote end and the enite capacity is one big pipe." p163 - Configuring cT1...Individual DS0's may be configured for different purposes. Some may be used for voice, some for data and different time slots may use different types of signalling. The book itself concentrates on unchannelised T1 and has been a great help to me over the past months working in the States, since in Europe we have simple E1 Regards MFC Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47928&t=47844 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
Can't I use the port group 1 distribution destination on both switches ??? I tried using set trunk ... but the switch did'nt understand the command ... the switch is running Version 12.0(5.3) and it is a WS-C3524-XL. I tried running the set trunk command from global config and int config mode do I assume that this will only run on a router and not a switch ??? and if so .. do I need to use the port group 1 distribution destination on both switches ??? Thankx Paul ... - Original Message - From: "Chris Harshman" To: Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:58 PM Subject: RE: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] > Configure both links as trunks then form an ether-channel. Both links will > pass traffic but a failure of one will not affect the other. > > Cisco Example: > set trunk 1/1 dot1q on > set trunk 1/2 dot1q on > > set port channel 1/1-2 on Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47929&t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
Hi Paul, The 3524-XL is not a set based switch. It is an IOS based switch. The commands would be different. Don't have access to internet / documentation right now but it would be done under each 'interface' ie. Fastethernet 0/2 etc Thanks Manish -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 02 July 2002 12:20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] Can't I use the port group 1 distribution destination on both switches ??? I tried using set trunk ... but the switch did'nt understand the command ... the switch is running Version 12.0(5.3) and it is a WS-C3524-XL. I tried running the set trunk command from global config and int config mode do I assume that this will only run on a router and not a switch ??? and if so .. do I need to use the port group 1 distribution destination on both switches ??? Thankx Paul ... - Original Message - From: "Chris Harshman" To: Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:58 PM Subject: RE: Dual Link redundancy [7:47854] > Configure both links as trunks then form an ether-channel. Both links will > pass traffic but a failure of one will not affect the other. > > Cisco Example: > set trunk 1/1 dot1q on > set trunk 1/2 dot1q on > > set port channel 1/1-2 on Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47930&t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Link redundancy .... [7:47854]
Off of the top of my head, I'd say something like this: interface FastEthernet 0/1 channel-group 1 mode [auto | desirable | on] interface FastEthernet 0/2 channel-group 1 mode [auto | desirable | on] interface Port-Channel 1 HTH, Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47931&t=47854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCNA Exam [7:47925]
www.HowToPostOnlyOnce.com ""Joupin"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi all > > Im going to sit for CCNA soon , > would you give me the address of some usefull sites Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47933&t=47925 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VTP (core 6509 Access 3548's) [7:47934]
Version 12.0(5)WC3b When I add new 3548's running the code version above it takes the addition or deletion of a VLAN to get them to receive the update. They would go for weeks without seeing an update and not have correct VLAN information until there is a change in the VTP domain. All I need to know now is how to FORCE a VTP advertisement from the core, since it only seems to flood them when a VLAN change occurs. In the VTP status of the 3548s showed it hadn't received an update since like 3 months ago, it was all correct and there have been NO changes in 3 months. As soon as I added a test VLAN all switches were set to the current date. So all I need to do is be able to force VTP advertisements with out having to delete or create a VLAN. Any ideas? (This is NOT a problem with my Cat 4006's) Thanks, Anthony Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47934&t=47934 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCNA Exam [7:47925]
muhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47935&t=47925 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Authentication with RSA ACE Server [7:47936]
Hi Folks, Quick question A simple yes / no is all I require. I'll do the research later :) Can we configure a Cisco Router (3620-Mbundle) to use an RSA ACE Server for authentication. The users will have Key Fob devices? Thanks Manish Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47936&t=47936 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Looking for CCIE lab partner in Chicago (Plainfiel [7:47845]
HEY I LIVE IN PLAINFIELD I was going for the lab July 24th in SJ but I pushed the panic button. I have a seat for Dec. but I am planning to swap for a Sept. I have lots of stuff and I could use a partner too. Give me a ring if you would like at 630-616-5141. BTW Where in Plainfiel;d do you live? IM near caton farm/59 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47937&t=47845 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Authentication with RSA ACE Server [7:47936]
yes - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:23 AM Subject: Authentication with RSA ACE Server [7:47936] > Hi Folks, > > Quick question > > A simple yes / no is all I require. I'll do the research later :) > > Can we configure a Cisco Router (3620-Mbundle) to use an RSA ACE Server for > authentication. The users will have Key Fob devices? > > Thanks > Manish Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47938&t=47936 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Authentication with RSA ACE Server [7:47936]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Hi Folks, > > A simple yes / no is all I require. I'll do the research later :) > >Can we configure a Cisco Router (3620-Mbundle) to use an RSA ACE Server for >authentication. The users will have Key Fob devices? > > > yes. we use it on 7200 marcin Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47939&t=47936 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Took the MPLS exam and flunked [7:47830]
Mike Bernico wrote: > To prepare I used "MPLS and VPN architectures" by Ivan Pepelnjak and also > "Advanced MPLS Design and Implementation" by Vivek Alwayn. The second book > was much more pertinent to the test and I believe is being revised for test, > but check ciscopress.com for that. There's a new edition of the Pepelnjak book advertised on the ciscopress.com website: "MPLS and VPN Architectures, CCIP Edition". How does it differ from the original? I hope I won't have to buy the CCIP Edition, but if it's a significant boost in preparing for the MPLS exam, I'll do it. -- TT Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47940&t=47830 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Networkers Power Slides [7:47900]
Found the link finally. pad pad http://www.cisco.com/networkers/nw02/update/index.html ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > What are the power slides? But they are publically available, I just have > to find the link > > -- > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > ""JohnZ"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Does any one have the link to the Power Slides from San Diego Networkers > 02. > > Are these even available yet. > > Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47941&t=47900 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new CIT [7:47777]
Historically, T1 and E1 are different from HDSL. However, they now use HDSL in the US to provide 24-channel circuits on a single pair of copper, as compared to the two pairs used for the traditional T1. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar situation occurs with HDSL and E1. Unfortunately, it's been four years since I worked with loop technologies, so I can't guarantee accuracy. Anyone else out there who's currently supporting HDSL? -- TT Mark Odette II wrote: > Ashir, I could be wrong, but I think an E1 circuit and an HDSL circuit > are two different things! [snip] > -Original Message- > From: Ashir73 (CubeXSPlanet.com) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:18 AM > To: Mark Odette II; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: new CIT [7:4] > > guide me which is the best hdsl modems to carry E1 on a single copper > pair Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47942&t=4 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Flash init failed (permission denied). [7:47825]
You are in ROM MON mode on the switch. You need to run the suggested commands flash_init load_helper boot once you do a flash_init and load_helper you can use the ? to see what command are available. You will probably need to load an image onto your switch using xmodem before it will boot properly. ""Marian Iordanescu"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi group, > > I have the folowing problem. have Found You the solution for this > problem yet? > > C2950 Boot Loader (CALHOUN-HBOOT-M) Version 12.0(5.3)WC(1), MAINTENANCE > INTERIM > SOFTWARE > Compiled Mon 30-Apr-01 07:56 by devgoyal > WS-C2950-24 starting... > Base ethernet MAC Address: 00:07:84:f9:09:40 > Unable to initialize flash device at 0xBF00 -- device not found. > Xmodem file system is available. > Initializing Flash... > ...no flash filesystems found. > > The system has been interrupted, or encountered an error > during initializion of the flash filesystem. The following > commands will initialize the flash filesystem, and finish > loading the operating system software: > > flash_init > load_helper > boot > > switch: dir flash: > unable to stat flash:/: permission denied > switch: flash_init > Initializing Flash... > ...no flash filesystems found. > switch: copy xmodem: flash:c2950-c3h2s-mz.120-5.3.WC.1.bin > Begin the Xmodem or Xmodem-1K transfer now... > CCBB0flash:c2950-c3h2s-mz.120-5.3.WC.1.bin: permission denied > switch: > > > Thank you in advance , > > Marian Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47943&t=47825 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
multiple Individual T1 termination --urgent [7:47944]
Hi Group, I have a client who needs 188 T1 (all 1.544Mb serial lines) terminations to be done on the central site. Network is hub and spoke fashion. Pls advise the suitable Cisco router/routers on the central site, for this purpose. Thanks. - (on postoffice) The information contained in this email is confidential and is meant to be read only by the person to whom it is addressed.Please visit http://www.millenniumit.com/legal/email.htm to read the entire confidentiality clause. - Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47944&t=47944 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT - Networkers, Orlando (Tennis, anyone?) [7:47846]
I am in Orlando, and would like to play if anyone is interested. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47945&t=47846 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VIC 2 BRI S/T TE: Unexpected indication (18) in f3 code [7:47947]
Steven, was a telco problem. Now I've a different problem. I'm in able to make voip call (with a bad quality) to pstn, but I'm not in able to make pstn call to voip. This is the disconnect cause: 02:26:37: ISDN BR1/0: TX -> DISCONNECT pd = 8 callref = 0x8C 02:26:37: Cause i = 0x809C - Invalid number format (incomplete number) do you have any suggestion? Teresa - Original Message - From: Steven A. Ridder To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:34 PM Subject: Re: VIC 2 BRI S/T TE: Unexpected indication (18) in f3 code [7:47833] Is their circuit up and active? Also, check the wiring. -- RFC 1149 Compliant. ""TP"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Dear group, > I have a cisco 2621 configured as voip/isdn gateway. > I'm not in able to configure properly vic 2BRI S/T TE interface. > > I've followed suggestion from this link > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/129/bri-layer1.html#first > > (shut, no shut, clear interface and isdn-tei-negotiation first-call) > But still remain the layer 1 deactivated. > Any suggestion? > > Thanks a lot, > Teresa > > From sh isdn status > 0:49:13: BRI1/1 : Unexpected indication (18) in f3 code > > SDN BRI1/0 interface > dsl 0, interface ISDN Switchtype = basic-net3 > Layer 1 Status: > DEACTIVATED > Layer 2 Status: > Layer 2 NOT Activated > Layer 3 Status: > 0 Active Layer 3 Call(s) > Active dsl 0 CCBs = 0 > The Free Channel Mask: 0x8003 > Number of L2 Discards = 0, L2 Session ID = 0 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47947&t=47947 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Networkers Power Slides [7:47900]
I didn't see the power slides there, where are they? Clayton Dukes CCNA, CCDA, CCDP, CCNP, NCC - Original Message - From: "Steven A. Ridder" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:09 AM Subject: Re: Networkers Power Slides [7:47900] > Found the link finally. > > pad > pad > > http://www.cisco.com/networkers/nw02/update/index.html > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > What are the power slides? But they are publically available, I just have > > to find the link > > > > -- > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > > > > > ""JohnZ"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Does any one have the link to the Power Slides from San Diego Networkers > > 02. > > > Are these even available yet. > > > Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47946&t=47900 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Networkers Power Slides [7:47900]
Oops, wrong link. pad pad pad http://www.cisco.com/networkers/nw02/presos.html -- RFC 1149 Compliant ""Clayton Dukes"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I didn't see the power slides there, where are they? > > > Clayton Dukes > CCNA, CCDA, CCDP, CCNP, NCC > > - Original Message - > From: "Steven A. Ridder" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:09 AM > Subject: Re: Networkers Power Slides [7:47900] > > > > Found the link finally. > > > > pad > > pad > > > > http://www.cisco.com/networkers/nw02/update/index.html > > > > > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > What are the power slides? But they are publically available, I just > have > > > to find the link > > > > > > -- > > > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > > > > > > > > > ""JohnZ"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Does any one have the link to the Power Slides from San Diego > Networkers > > > 02. > > > > Are these even available yet. > > > > Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47948&t=47900 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Confusion: Channelized and Unchannelized T1 [7:47949]
I am assuming that this is refering to a Point-to-Point T1 Circuit. If so, the telco refers to the circuit as unchanelized because they are not breaking off any channels for you, You are doing this yourself with a mux. Thanks, Benjamin Pierce > --- "Steven A. Ridder" wrote: > > I think a channelized T1 sends 193 bit frames as > > well. 8 for each channel > > plus 1 for timing = 193. > > > > All T1's are channelized, otherwise it would have > to > > be some sort of > > byte-synch communication, which isn't plausible. > > > > I think the tech you spoke to is incorrect as > well. > > > > > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Just when I thought I understood the T1 world > > pretty well we've run into > > > a situation that is thoroughly confusing me. > > > > > > I was under the impression that channelized T1 > > services used 24 > > > timeslots. I call that 'channelized' because it > > has 24 distinct > > > 'channels'. It's my understanding that > > unchannelized T1 doesn't use the > > > 24 timeslots and instead sends one giant 192-bit > > frame. > > > > > > At one of our locations we are muxing voice and > > data traffic onto a > > > single T1. At each end we split off certain > > channels to a router and > > > other channels over to the PBX. To do this, > > wouldn't the T1 *have* to > > > be channelized, since we're separating the > > channels at the CSU/DSU? > > > According to our provider, that circuit is > > unchannelized. If a circuit > > > is truly unchannelized, how would the CSU/DSU be > > able to accurately > > > split the T1 into two separate streams based on > > channel information? > > > > > > To be more clear, let's say we have the CSU/DSU > > configured to split > > > channels 1-12 to the router and 13-24 to the > PBX. > > This splitting > > > function is based on the assumption that > channels > > exist on the incoming > > > T1. If they don't exist and we have one giant > > frame instead of 24 > > > smaller frames, how could this possibly be > > working?? > > > > > > Yowza...my head hurts. > > > > > > John > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free > http://sbc.yahoo.com > __ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47949&t=47949 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange 6500/IPX Issue!! HELP!! [7:47951]
Okay we have two 6509s with Sup2/MSFC2 running Native IOS 12.1(8b)E7, and a Cat5513 running CatOS 4.5(2) with RSM running IOS 11.3(3a)WA4(5). We have 6509A connected via a Gig trunk (ISL) to 6509B and 6509B connects to the 5513 via a 4-link FastEtherchannel trunk (ISL). Most of our Novell servers are connected to the 5513 and ALL Novell servers reside in VLAN1. All VLANs are trunked between all 3 switches. The RSM in the 5500 handles all IPX routing for all VLANs and the two 6500s do no IPX routing. IP Routing for the various VLANs are spread around the 6500s/5513 with HSRP. Our standard PC image has Win95 with Netware Client 3.2 (I believe) installed. IPX frame type under Windows is set to 802.3. Under normal circumstances, the PC boots, and comes up to the Novell login. Issue: * If the PC is connected to 6509B in any other VLAN except 1, you get a Novell login and IPX works fine. * If you connect a PC to 6509B in VLAN1, and boot, you get no Novell login. You can, from the RSM in the 5513, so an IPX ping with standard Novell Echos and it is successful. But I also have a utility that runs in a DOS window under Windows called SPXping. Using SPXping, I cannot ping to or from said PC. * If I move that PC to either 6509A or 5513, and reboot, it comes up fine and SPXping works fine. (remember that 6509A has to go through 6509B to reach the Novell servers on the 5513) * If the PC is connected to either 6509A or 5513, boots up and you login to Novell, you can then move the connection to 6509B and it works fine until the PC is rebooted. * IP is not affected in any way no matter which switch the PC connects to (which seems to imply a L3 IPX issue, but 6509B isn't running any L3 IPX and should, from an IPX perspective, act as a L2 switch only for PCs connected to it) Any input is appreciated!! I about to tear my hair out over this (and so is the TAC engr) Thanks! Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47951&t=47951 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: new CIT [7:47777]
At my old job we had pairgain HDSL stuff. They would do anything from 64k on up to 4096 (2 loops on 2 pair). So, yes, you could have 24 ds0's on one pair of copper. Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom Scott Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: new CIT [7:4] Historically, T1 and E1 are different from HDSL. However, they now use HDSL in the US to provide 24-channel circuits on a single pair of copper, as compared to the two pairs used for the traditional T1. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar situation occurs with HDSL and E1. Unfortunately, it's been four years since I worked with loop technologies, so I can't guarantee accuracy. Anyone else out there who's currently supporting HDSL? -- TT Mark Odette II wrote: > Ashir, I could be wrong, but I think an E1 circuit and an HDSL circuit > are two different things! [snip] > -Original Message- > From: Ashir73 (CubeXSPlanet.com) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:18 AM > To: Mark Odette II; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: new CIT [7:4] > > guide me which is the best hdsl modems to carry E1 on a single copper > pair Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47950&t=4 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Confusion: Channelized and Unchannelized T1 [7:47844]
Hey Matt, That's exactly where I got my info from. BTW, that's a really good book to learn about T1, unchannelized or otherwise. And it goes into HDLC, PPP and Frame Relay as well. The reindeer on the front cover rocks! hehe Wes ""Matthew Crane"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi John > > Thought I would just add a few words from 'T1 A survival guide' from > O'Reilly. > > T1 = DS1 delivered over a 4 wire copper interface > DS1 = Digital Stream level 1 - 24 DS0's combined into a DS1 which supplies > 1536 kbps connectivity plus 8 kbps framing and signalling overhead for a > total of 1544kbps. > DS0 = A single 64kbps channel. > > p149 - "Each time slot in the T1 has the capacity to support one traditional > telephone call. Channelised T1 does exactly this - each of the 24 time slots > can be treated as a digital telephone line. Each line has a 64kbps raw > capacity, but since a byte must be used for signalling the maximum thoughput > of a cT1 channel is 56kbps. On ther otherhand unchannelised T1 simply views > each time slot as the opporunity to send another 8bits of data to the remote > end and the enite capacity is one big pipe." > > p163 - Configuring cT1...Individual DS0's may be configured for different > purposes. Some may be used for voice, some for data and different time slots > may use different types of signalling. > > The book itself concentrates on unchannelised T1 and has been a great help > to me over the past months working in the States, since in Europe we have > simple E1 > > Regards > > MFC Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47953&t=47844 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please tell me it isnt so :( [7:47863]
Morgan, The 'enable password' command is the original command that allows you to go to 'priviliged EXEC' mode and configure the router/switch. Although the password can be encrypted, it isn't a very robust technique and can be cracked by putting the password back into the algorithm. The 'enable secret' came later and uses 128 bit key to encrypt the password, which cannot easily be cracked. Phil. --- Morgan Hansen wrote: > Hi, and once again Helo :-) > > Ive just received this note at my inbox: > > "Isn't enable password just the older form of enable > secret?" > > Reading this allmost made me go into shock! Is this > true??! Cause if it > is im out of werdz(?) > > For allmost a year now I have with 30 something > other youngsters studied > at my school (name whatever) for the CCNA and the > CNAP program. Our 2 > teachers (name irrelevant) have told us this about > the passwords: > > enable password (when logging on to the router you > should use this) > > enable secret (the password you must use to be able > to make > configuration changes in your router) > > So my question is: > > ARE WE BEING LIED TO?! (let me tell you, this school > costs $$$, so > im hoping for an answer like; NO) > Oh, and one other thing. If this turnes out to be > the truth, im having > mixed emotions about paying huge amounts of $ to be > able to use their > curriculum during my CNAP studying time, just to > find out that what they > ask of you on their CCNA exam filters things not > even MENTIONED in the > Curriculum they provide! It's the sadest thing. > > Morgan Hansen > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47954&t=47863 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: unity question [7:47917]
But why do we have to dial thoese DNs to turn on and off the lamp?
Doesn't the lamp always light up when you get a message? I don't
understand their ("MessageWaitingOffDN" and "MessageWaitingOnDN")
purpose.
Thanks.
Yoshi
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Steven A. Ridder
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: unity question [7:47917]
the Message waiting thing is the lamp on a phone that lights up
indicating
you have voicemail. I have no idea what a dual phones system is.
--
RFC 1149 Compliant.
""supernet"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What means "dual phone system"? Is it traditional phone system and IP
> phone system in the same environment?
>
> What are "MessageWaitingOffDN" and "MessageWaitingOnDN" used for? I
> understand when dial those DNs, the LED on IP phone will light up or
> off, but why do we want this function?
>
> Thanks.
> Yoshi
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47955&t=47917
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CCIE Written [7:47835]
Congratulations to you. I passed the written yesterday. What a great exam...the NLI book and Boson #3 along with CCO were excellent prep materials. The journey has really just begun. A thank you to all who contribute to and keep this list moving along. Have a great day!! Robert -Original Message- From: Reza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 11:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CCIE Written [7:47835] Hi Group, I passed the CCIE written last week. I like to thank every body in this group for your input. This is a great group. I have to say that Boson #3 by Dennis is excellent. Thanks Reza Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47932&t=47835 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: multiple Individual T1 termination --urgent [7:47944]
must be nice to have so much money. these all data lines? why in the world would they not use channelized DS3 at the center? hell of a LOT cheaper Your telco account manager bying a new boat this summer? density will be a problem. 7206's with the PA-MC-8T1 cards - that will give you 64xT1 per box. you do the math. HTH Chuck ""Vajira Wijesinghe"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi Group, > > I have a client who needs 188 T1 (all 1.544Mb serial lines) terminations > to be done on the central site. > Network is hub and spoke fashion. > Pls advise the suitable Cisco router/routers on the central site, for > this purpose. > > Thanks. > - (on postoffice) > > The information contained in this email is confidential and is meant to be > read only by the person to whom it is addressed.Please visit > http://www.millenniumit.com/legal/email.htm to read the entire > confidentiality clause. > > - Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47956&t=47944 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Authentication with RSA ACE Server [7:47936]
yes you can Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47957&t=47936 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: multiple Individual T1 termination --urgent [7:47944]
""Chuck"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > must be nice to have so much money. these all data lines? why in the world > would they not use channelized DS3 at the center? hell of a LOT > cheaper Your telco account manager bying a new boat this summer? > > > density will be a problem. 7206's with the PA-MC-8T1 cards - that will give > you 64xT1 per box. you do the math. CL: because obviously I can't :-> make that 48 T1's per box I would suggest a 7509 or so, but then you run into issues with too much on one box and all the additinal overhead cost to provision those suckers. > > HTH > > Chuck > > > > > > > > ""Vajira Wijesinghe"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hi Group, > > > > I have a client who needs 188 T1 (all 1.544Mb serial lines) terminations > > to be done on the central site. > > Network is hub and spoke fashion. > > Pls advise the suitable Cisco router/routers on the central site, for > > this purpose. > > > > Thanks. > > - (on postoffice) > > > > The information contained in this email is confidential and is meant to be > > read only by the person to whom it is addressed.Please visit > > http://www.millenniumit.com/legal/email.htm to read the entire > > confidentiality clause. > > > > - Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47958&t=47944 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange 6500/IPX Issue!! HELP!! [7:47951]
Did you enable portfast or use the 'host' macro to set the user ports on this switch? I have seen this, but it was in a situation where the user machines had there IPX frame type set to auto. In that case the users machine would boot up, try and autodetect the IPX frame type in use on the segment, but since the interface wasn't forwarding yet, he wouldn't see any IPX frames, and hence it would default to a frame type other than what was actually being used on the network. These machiones also had the classic DHCP problems for the same reason. But, since you have hardcoded the IPX frame type, I'd suspect that maybe he does his GNS, and if the port isn't forwarding, he just doesn't get a response, and on a Windows95 machine, it will then go to a secondary login (if there is one) or just go straight to the desktop. If IP isn't a problem, are they using static IP addresses? Good Luck! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47959&t=47951 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange 6500/IPX Issue!! HELP!! [7:47951]
Cisco Breaker wrote: > Did you disable spanning tree or used portfast on the ports > which are connected to clients. Yes. In my original post, I tried to be as informative as possible, there's always something that gets left out. Being a Novell shop (but not much longer!) we put portfast on all ports going to servers/clients. Here is the config of one of the ports on the 6509B that's having the issue: interface FastEthernet6/4 no ip address duplex half speed 10 switchport switchport mode access spanning-tree portfase I've toyed with speed/duplex, etc and nothing makes a difference... However, I did find out something interesting. While using the SPXping utility, I found that I can *not* "ping" from the affected machine and get a response, but if I use SPXping on another machine, I can indeed get a "ping" response from the affected machine. Strange. Thanks for your input! Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47960&t=47951 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange 6500/IPX Issue!! HELP!! [7:47951]
The two PCs I'm experienting with are using hard-coded IPs, however the results are the same with a DHCP machine. Portfast is indeed enabled (A while ago, I learned the hard way about spanning-tree and DHCP/Novell). Well, and I find myself trying to get more into the Novell process to understand where the breakdown could be happening. I know when the PC boots, it does a GNS and I also know routers will keep a GNS table and can respond to the GNS requests, but in this case the PCs are in the same VLAN with the Novell servers. The Cisco TAC Engr said that if there are Type 4 servers in the subnet (or on that ethernet segment) that the router won't respond to the GNS requests. I connected a sniffer and when the PC boots you see 4 GNS requests go out and never a single response. Strange since it's in the same VLAN with 30+ Novell servers!! Like I said tho, the strangest part is that if I connect the PC to VLAN1 on 6509A (which would have to be L2 switched over 6509B which would then L2 switch over to the 5513 where the Novell servers are physically connected) it works like it should. I've dug around on Novell's website, and found a document saying that not only Spanning Tree, but also Trunk negotiation (which is 'auto' by default) and PAgP (which is only active if you have the link set as a member of an etherchannel, so it doesn't apply here) can all interfere with Novell's login process. Again, thanks for your comments, and keep 'em coming... Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47961&t=47951 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: multiple Individual T1 termination --urgent [7:47944]
My question is - why does it have to be Cisco? If you want edge density, Cisco doesn't have the best solution. Try a Juniper/Unisphere ERX1440. Oh whoops - I forgot, I'm not allowed to mention the evil 'J' on this NG ""Chuck"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > must be nice to have so much money. these all data lines? why in the world > > would they not use channelized DS3 at the center? hell of a LOT > > cheaper Your telco account manager bying a new boat this summer? > > > > > > density will be a problem. 7206's with the PA-MC-8T1 cards - that will > give > > you 64xT1 per box. you do the math. > > CL: because obviously I can't :-> make that 48 T1's per box I would > suggest a 7509 or so, but then you run into issues with too much on one box > and all the additinal overhead cost to provision those suckers. > > > > > HTH > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Vajira Wijesinghe"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Hi Group, > > > > > > I have a client who needs 188 T1 (all 1.544Mb serial lines) terminations > > > to be done on the central site. > > > Network is hub and spoke fashion. > > > Pls advise the suitable Cisco router/routers on the central site, for > > > this purpose. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > - (on postoffice) > > > > > > The information contained in this email is confidential and is meant to > be > > > read only by the person to whom it is addressed.Please visit > > > http://www.millenniumit.com/legal/email.htm to read the entire > > > confidentiality clause. > > > > > > - Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47962&t=47944 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange 6500/IPX Issue!! HELP!! [7:47951]
I found I was mis-typing a MAC address portion of the IPX address. So, I have a PC in VLAN1 that can't communicate with Novell, but it can send *and* receive "pings" with the SPXping utility. My bad. Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47963&t=47951 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange 6500/IPX Issue!! HELP!! [7:47951]
Did you disable spanning tree or used portfast on the ports which are connected to clients. We have a customer that had the same issue and we changed the client ports on the 6500's to portfast. Here is the link. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/12.html Best regards, Cisco Breaker ""Michael Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Okay we have two 6509s with Sup2/MSFC2 running Native IOS 12.1(8b)E7, > and a Cat5513 running CatOS 4.5(2) with RSM running IOS 11.3(3a)WA4(5). We > have 6509A connected via a Gig trunk (ISL) to 6509B and 6509B connects to > the 5513 via a 4-link FastEtherchannel trunk (ISL). Most of our Novell > servers are connected to the 5513 and ALL Novell servers reside in VLAN1. > All VLANs are trunked between all 3 switches. The RSM in the 5500 handles > all IPX routing for all VLANs and the two 6500s do no IPX routing. IP > Routing for the various VLANs are spread around the 6500s/5513 with HSRP. > Our standard PC image has Win95 with Netware Client 3.2 (I believe) > installed. IPX frame type under Windows is set to 802.3. Under normal > circumstances, the PC boots, and comes up to the Novell login. > > Issue: > > * If the PC is connected to 6509B in any other VLAN except 1, you get a > Novell login and IPX works fine. > > * If you connect a PC to 6509B in VLAN1, and boot, you get no Novell login. > You can, from the RSM in the 5513, so an IPX ping with standard Novell > Echos and it is successful. > But I also have a utility that runs in a DOS window under Windows called > SPXping. Using SPXping, I cannot ping to or from said PC. > > * If I move that PC to either 6509A or 5513, and reboot, it comes up fine > and SPXping works fine. (remember that 6509A has to go through 6509B to > reach the Novell servers on the 5513) > * If the PC is connected to either 6509A or 5513, boots up and you login to > Novell, you can then move the connection to 6509B and it works fine until > the PC is rebooted. > > * IP is not affected in any way no matter which switch the PC connects to > (which seems to imply a L3 IPX issue, but 6509B isn't running any L3 IPX and > should, from an IPX perspective, act as a L2 switch only for PCs connected > to it) > > Any input is appreciated!! I about to tear my hair out over this (and > so is the TAC engr) > > Thanks! > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47952&t=47951 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange 6500/IPX Issue!! HELP!! [7:47951]
Michael, Shot in the dark - I've seen very strange issues like this with trunk mismatches. You've probably got a trunk between the two switches. Make sure your native VLANs match, make sure that every VLAN permitted on the trunk is permitted on both sides. On a similar vein, all trunk ports should have similar characteristics (I go with 100, full, desirable trunking, desirable channeling; regardless, just make sure it's the same both sides) Also, if you've got links bundled, try bringing down one of the links for a bit, then try the other(s). Switches load balance via MACs, if you've got a uni-directional link or something, packets from the same machine will usually transit the same wire every time - physical port/cable problems might appear to be associated with only certain machines because of this. Best guess for now. Good luck! --Wes Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47964&t=47951 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Networkers Power Slides [7:47900]
Thanks Steve. The slides are very helpful. Alex Steven A. Ridder wrote: > > Oops, wrong link. > > pad > pad > pad > > http://www.cisco.com/networkers/nw02/presos.html > > > -- > RFC 1149 Compliant > > > > > ""Clayton Dukes"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I didn't see the power slides there, where are they? > > > > > > Clayton Dukes > > CCNA, CCDA, CCDP, CCNP, NCC > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Steven A. Ridder" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:09 AM > > Subject: Re: Networkers Power Slides [7:47900] > > > > > > > Found the link finally. > > > > > > pad > > > pad > > > > > > http://www.cisco.com/networkers/nw02/update/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > What are the power slides? But they are publically > available, I just > > have > > > > to find the link > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""JohnZ"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Does any one have the link to the Power Slides from San > Diego > > Networkers > > > > 02. > > > > > Are these even available yet. > > > > > Thanks > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47965&t=47900 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCIE Power Sessions [7:47966]
Does anyone have a copy of the slides used at the 2002 CCIE power sessions at Networkers? If so, is there a link to it? If not, can I get a copy? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47966&t=47966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange 6500/IPX Issue!! HELP!! [7:47951]
Wes, Thanks for your reply. As you can imagine I've been through the ringer so far with this one =) We checked all of the trunks for native VLAN, speed, duplex, etc... All checks out. This is also supported by the fact that IP works fine (all IP routing for VLAN1 is handled by the RSM in the 5513, which means anything plugged into 6509A or 6509B that leaves the IP subnet must travel those trunk links to hit the RSM and get routed. One interesting note: In an attempt to find out anything new, I took a Dell desktop with integrated NIC, etc (my test machines and the machines having the problem so far have been IBM 300PL with integrated NIC), and when the Dell is connected to 6509B (the one with the "problem") it boots and gets the Novell login, which automatically points to the hardware or the image on that IBM. However, that same IBM, when connected to 6509A works fine, which kinda discounts that theory. I'm going crazy here!! Another interesting thing to note: If I connect the PC (the IBM) to a 2900, then connect the 2900 to 6509B, the client still doesn't receive the Novell login. However, if I connect the PC to a hub and connect the hub to 6509B then the PC boots and gets the Novell login everytime. I gotta be missing something.. I watched the 'sho mac int fas' closely and upon booting the IBM's MAC address isn't seen by the switch for 12-15 seconds after you see "Starting Windows 95". The MAC address on the Dell becomes visible within about 3 seconds after "Starting Windows 95". However I'm sure part of that can be attributed to the fact the IBM is a 200MHz -vs- 900MHz on the Dell (and the Dell I'm sure has newer faster drives, etc) But everytime I start to form a theory about something to do with the PC, my co-worker goes "Yeah, but it works on the other 6509" and everytime I form a theory that it could be something wrong with 6509B he goes, "Yeah, but the Dell works on it".. I can't win!!! Thanks again to all who have replied... Mike W. "Wes " wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Michael, > > Shot in the dark - I've seen very strange issues like this with trunk > mismatches. You've probably got a trunk between the two switches. Make > sure your native VLANs match, make sure that every VLAN permitted on the > trunk is permitted on both sides. On a similar vein, all trunk ports should > have similar characteristics (I go with 100, full, desirable trunking, > desirable channeling; regardless, just make sure it's the same both sides) > > Also, if you've got links bundled, try bringing down one of the links for > a bit, then try the other(s). Switches load balance via MACs, if you've got > a uni-directional link or something, packets from the same machine will > usually transit the same wire every time - physical port/cable problems > might appear to be associated with only certain machines because of this. > > Best guess for now. Good luck! > --Wes Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47967&t=47951 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: multiple Individual T1 termination --urgent [7:47944]
the only reason I lead with Cisco is that I'm just a Cisco jock. When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails. Howard - don't start ;-> Chuck ""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > My question is - why does it have to be Cisco? If you want edge density, > Cisco doesn't have the best solution. Try a Juniper/Unisphere ERX1440. > > Oh whoops - I forgot, I'm not allowed to mention the evil 'J' on this > NG > > > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > must be nice to have so much money. these all data lines? why in the > world > > > would they not use channelized DS3 at the center? hell of a LOT > > > cheaper Your telco account manager bying a new boat this summer? > > > > > > > > > density will be a problem. 7206's with the PA-MC-8T1 cards - that will > > give > > > you 64xT1 per box. you do the math. > > > > CL: because obviously I can't :-> make that 48 T1's per box I would > > suggest a 7509 or so, but then you run into issues with too much on one > box > > and all the additinal overhead cost to provision those suckers. > > > > > > > > HTH > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Vajira Wijesinghe"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Hi Group, > > > > > > > > I have a client who needs 188 T1 (all 1.544Mb serial lines) > terminations > > > > to be done on the central site. > > > > Network is hub and spoke fashion. > > > > Pls advise the suitable Cisco router/routers on the central site, for > > > > this purpose. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > - (on postoffice) > > > > > > > > The information contained in this email is confidential and is meant > to > > be > > > > read only by the person to whom it is addressed.Please visit > > > > http://www.millenniumit.com/legal/email.htm to read the entire > > > > confidentiality clause. > > > > > > > > - Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47968&t=47944 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unity question [7:47917]
You have to ask yourself how the voicemail system knows to turn on or off
the light on the phone, and which phone (as opposed to everybody's phone,
which would obviously not be very cool).
Basically, what happens is if you get voicemail, the voicemail system
basically has to contact the PBX (the CM) and say which box (which phone)
has waiting mail. The voicemail system does this by basically itself
dialing a number (the MessagewaitingonDN) and then relaying the appropriate
information ("turn on the light of the phone at number X"). . The
voicemail system than dials another number when it wants to turn the light
off.
""supernet"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But why do we have to dial thoese DNs to turn on and off the lamp?
> Doesn't the lamp always light up when you get a message? I don't
> understand their ("MessageWaitingOffDN" and "MessageWaitingOnDN")
> purpose.
>
> Thanks.
> Yoshi
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Steven A. Ridder
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:01 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: unity question [7:47917]
>
> the Message waiting thing is the lamp on a phone that lights up
> indicating
> you have voicemail. I have no idea what a dual phones system is.
>
> --
>
> RFC 1149 Compliant.
>
>
>
> ""supernet"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What means "dual phone system"? Is it traditional phone system and IP
> > phone system in the same environment?
> >
> > What are "MessageWaitingOffDN" and "MessageWaitingOnDN" used for? I
> > understand when dial those DNs, the LED on IP phone will light up or
> > off, but why do we want this function?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Yoshi
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47969&t=47917
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: multiple Individual T1 termination --urgent [7:47944]
hey, if they can afford that many T1's, instead of going to DS3 or frame DS3 ( with all the failover protection that could be built in ) then they sure can afford to pay for Cisco's lack of port density. :-> ""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > My question is - why does it have to be Cisco? If you want edge density, > Cisco doesn't have the best solution. Try a Juniper/Unisphere ERX1440. > > Oh whoops - I forgot, I'm not allowed to mention the evil 'J' on this > NG > > > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > must be nice to have so much money. these all data lines? why in the > world > > > would they not use channelized DS3 at the center? hell of a LOT > > > cheaper Your telco account manager bying a new boat this summer? > > > > > > > > > density will be a problem. 7206's with the PA-MC-8T1 cards - that will > > give > > > you 64xT1 per box. you do the math. > > > > CL: because obviously I can't :-> make that 48 T1's per box I would > > suggest a 7509 or so, but then you run into issues with too much on one > box > > and all the additinal overhead cost to provision those suckers. > > > > > > > > HTH > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Vajira Wijesinghe"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Hi Group, > > > > > > > > I have a client who needs 188 T1 (all 1.544Mb serial lines) > terminations > > > > to be done on the central site. > > > > Network is hub and spoke fashion. > > > > Pls advise the suitable Cisco router/routers on the central site, for > > > > this purpose. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > - (on postoffice) > > > > > > > > The information contained in this email is confidential and is meant > to > > be > > > > read only by the person to whom it is addressed.Please visit > > > > http://www.millenniumit.com/legal/email.htm to read the entire > > > > confidentiality clause. > > > > > > > > - Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47970&t=47944 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CCIE Power Sessions [7:47966]
Sandra Carr wrote: > > Does anyone have a copy of the slides used at the 2002 CCIE > power sessions at Networkers? If so, is there a link to it? > If not, can I get a copy? In case you missed it in the other thread: http://www.cisco.com/networkers/nw02/presos.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47971&t=47966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: CCIE Lab Intelligence [7:47973]
I've started reading the documentation for the Cat 3550 EMI L3 switch that will be making its appearance in the CCIE lab in October, and will become THE L2 device in November. It does NOT route BGP, according to the docs. Good to know. Does do CEF. Does do a s**t load of QoS. In fact, from the look of the documentation, some folks may just want to move their labs up a bit. Bet it's going to get REAL hard, REAL fast, with this new box in place. :-0 http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/c3550/1219ea1/3550scg/sw iprout.htm Chuck Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47973&t=47973 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Passed with room to spare - CSVPN [7:47972]
After all is said and done the test was good. Some of the questions were strangely worded. Those ones I used the "gut feeling, close the eyes, click the mouse" approach to answering. Either I did not have many of those or scored correctly on the ones I did come across. The course I took really helped lay down the foundation of what I studied. It turned out to be a great resource. The information can all be found on CCO but you will need to sit down with the outline then pick and choose. Sorry I have not seen any Boson tests or study guides for any subject so I could not compare it to those. I can see this being one of those tests that you will dread to take in the future. My best advice for anyone thinking about taking the exam is to follow the outline. Kim :) Now onto the next test. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47972&t=47972 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VTP (core 6509 Access 3548's) [7:47934]
Hi , We are running 3548's with 6509's and had the exact same issue on VTP Version 2 with authentication. So we just created and deleted dummy test Vlan's and this seemed to trigger it, I'm still unsure as to why the updates dont proprgate every 5minutes (apparently thats the default) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47974&t=47934 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VOIP dialer-peer question [7:47976]
I am in need of a quick help. I am configuring VOIP between two site over the internet. Each site has it's own PBX and 2620. The 2620 has HDV module with T1 interface directly connected the PBX via E&M winkstart. The connection between PBX and Router is fine at both sites. At site 1, they have 5-digit dialing plan and site 2, they have 4-digit dial plan. The following config was taken from the site 2 with 4-digit dial plan. Their extensions are 79xx. The site 1's extensions are 370xx. The PBXs at both sites seem to be configured correctly with trunk-group and all other neccessary configs. My question here is should I be configuring the voice-port 1/0:1 as a connection trunk with connection trunk command? the router connects to the remote router when the extension from one site to another is dialed, but it keeps ringing and never seems to ring the actual extension. Any help would be appreciate it. controller T1 1/0 framing esf linecode b8zs ds0-group 1 timeslots 1-24 type e&m-wink-start cas-custom 1 ! ! voice-port 1/0:1 operation 4-wire ! ! dial-peer voice 1 pots destination-pattern 79.. port 1/0:1 ! dial-peer voice 10 voip destination-pattern 370.. session target ipv4:x.x.x.x Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47976&t=47976 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VOIP dialer-peer question [7:47976]
I think the non-wildcard digits on POTS dial peers get stripped before they are outpulsed. So you might need a 'prefix 79' under the 'dial-peer voice 1 pots' . Good Luck, Vance ""Firesox"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I am in need of a quick help. > I am configuring VOIP between two site over the internet. Each site has > it's own PBX and 2620. > The 2620 has HDV module with T1 interface directly connected the PBX via E&M > winkstart. > The connection between PBX and Router is fine at both sites. > At site 1, they have 5-digit dialing plan and site 2, they have 4-digit dial > plan. > The following config was taken from the site 2 with 4-digit dial plan. > Their extensions are 79xx. The site 1's extensions are 370xx. > The PBXs at both sites seem to be configured correctly with trunk-group and > all other neccessary configs. > My question here is should I be configuring the voice-port 1/0:1 as a > connection trunk with connection trunk command? > the router connects to the remote router when the extension from one site to > another is dialed, but it keeps ringing and never seems to ring the actual > extension. > Any help would be appreciate it. > > > controller T1 1/0 > framing esf > > linecode b8zs > > ds0-group 1 timeslots 1-24 type e&m-wink-start > > cas-custom 1 > > ! > > ! > > voice-port 1/0:1 > > operation 4-wire > > ! > > ! > > dial-peer voice 1 pots > > destination-pattern 79.. > > port 1/0:1 > > ! > > dial-peer voice 10 voip > > destination-pattern 370.. > > session target ipv4:x.x.x.x Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47977&t=47976 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VOIP dialer-peer question [7:47976]
Voice Gurus: I'm going to take a stab on this because I just went through some of this myself (with 2610s but hey same deal)... feel free to point out my mistakes If you are doing an E&M trunk between the two PBXs (with the VoIP link acting as the router), then the dialing information you configure is "local" to those VoIP peers and doesn't affect the actual dial digits that are passed between the two PBXs. So as long as their PBXs have dialing plans that are setup to talk to each other, the digits you use to establish the trunk "calls" between the VoIP peer routers is arbitrary. For instance, here would be configs for each end of a VoIP trunk: Side A controller T1 1/0 framing esf linecode b8zs cablelength short 133 ds0-group 1 timeslots 1-24 type e&m-wink-start ! interface Ethernet0/0 ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 full-duplex ! voice-port 1/0:1 output attenuation 3 connection trunk ! dial-peer cor custom ! dial-peer voice 1 voip destination-pattern session target ipv4:10.1.2.1 dtmf-relay cisco-rtp codec g729br8 ! dial-peer voice 2 pots destination-pattern 9998 port 1/0:1 Side B controller T1 1/0 framing esf linecode b8zs cablelength short 133 ds0-group 1 timeslots 1-24 type e&m-wink-start ! interface Ethernet0/0 ip address 10.1.2.1 255.255.255.0 full-duplex ! voice-port 1/0:1 output attenuation 3 connection trunk 9998 answer-mode ! dial-peer cor custom ! dial-peer voice 1 voip destination-pattern 9998 session target ipv4:10.1.1.1 dtmf-relay cisco-rtp codec g729br8 ! dial-peer voice 2 pots destination-pattern port 1/0:1 Basically, on a given router you: 1. Assign the DS0s to a DS0 group 2. Under the Voice port (created when you create the DS0 group), configure 'connection trunk' with "phone number" of the other end (something you make up, not part of the PBX dial-plan) 3. Create a 'voip' dial peer where you give the "phone number" (from step 2) and the IP of the peer (and I suggest using DTMF Relay if you're using compression) 4. Create a second dial peer that is 'pots' that maps the "incoming phone number" to the local voice-port Note: Cisco recommends putting "answer-mode" on one end of the trunk links. Note: Cisco does *not* recommend or support putting all 24 DS0s into a single DS0 group unless you are using IOS 12.2T or higher (some problem with individual DS0s getting "hung"). I have a sample config I created that makes 24 separate DS0 groups each mapped with their own "phone number" and pots peer. If you need I can forward cuz it will sure save alot of typing. HTH, Mike W. "Firesox" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I am in need of a quick help. > I am configuring VOIP between two site over the internet. Each site has > it's own PBX and 2620. > The 2620 has HDV module with T1 interface directly connected the PBX via E&M > winkstart. > The connection between PBX and Router is fine at both sites. > At site 1, they have 5-digit dialing plan and site 2, they have 4-digit dial > plan. > The following config was taken from the site 2 with 4-digit dial plan. > Their extensions are 79xx. The site 1's extensions are 370xx. > The PBXs at both sites seem to be configured correctly with trunk-group and > all other neccessary configs. > My question here is should I be configuring the voice-port 1/0:1 as a > connection trunk with connection trunk command? > the router connects to the remote router when the extension from one site to > another is dialed, but it keeps ringing and never seems to ring the actual > extension. > Any help would be appreciate it. > > > controller T1 1/0 > framing esf > > linecode b8zs > > ds0-group 1 timeslots 1-24 type e&m-wink-start > > cas-custom 1 > > ! > > ! > > voice-port 1/0:1 > > operation 4-wire > > ! > > ! > > dial-peer voice 1 pots > > destination-pattern 79.. > > port 1/0:1 > > ! > > dial-peer voice 10 voip > > destination-pattern 370.. > > session target ipv4:x.x.x.x Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47978&t=47976 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VOIP dialer-peer question [7:47976]
My previous post and this URL are strictly for permanent voip trunks between PBXs. Sorry... I meant to include an URL.. One thing I did NOT like about this example tho, is that they are doing as I mentioned and configured a separate DS0 group for every DS0 and therefore they end up with multiple 'pots' dial-peers and voice ports (one for each DS0 group). The result of this is that when they have a config line like "destination-pattern 111. " is misleading because it appears your accepting the dial digits from the PBX, but you're not you're only matching the dial-digits that you configured locally. http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120 t/120t7/t1_vo_t6.htm#xtocid1960937 Mike W. "Firesox" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I am in need of a quick help. > I am configuring VOIP between two site over the internet. Each site has > it's own PBX and 2620. > The 2620 has HDV module with T1 interface directly connected the PBX via E&M > winkstart. > The connection between PBX and Router is fine at both sites. > At site 1, they have 5-digit dialing plan and site 2, they have 4-digit dial > plan. > The following config was taken from the site 2 with 4-digit dial plan. > Their extensions are 79xx. The site 1's extensions are 370xx. > The PBXs at both sites seem to be configured correctly with trunk-group and > all other neccessary configs. > My question here is should I be configuring the voice-port 1/0:1 as a > connection trunk with connection trunk command? > the router connects to the remote router when the extension from one site to > another is dialed, but it keeps ringing and never seems to ring the actual > extension. > Any help would be appreciate it. > > > controller T1 1/0 > framing esf > > linecode b8zs > > ds0-group 1 timeslots 1-24 type e&m-wink-start > > cas-custom 1 > > ! > > ! > > voice-port 1/0:1 > > operation 4-wire > > ! > > ! > > dial-peer voice 1 pots > > destination-pattern 79.. > > port 1/0:1 > > ! > > dial-peer voice 10 voip > > destination-pattern 370.. > > session target ipv4:x.x.x.x Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47979&t=47976 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT: CCIE Lab Intelligence [7:47973]
What makes you think it doesnt do BGP? I have one right next to me.. Sure has hell does bgp Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) C3550 Software (C3550-I5Q3L2-M), Version 12.1(8)EA1c, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Copyright (c) 1986-2002 by cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Fri 15-Feb-02 10:50 by antonino Image text-base: 0x3000, data-base: 0x006675E0 ROM: Bootstrap program is C3550 boot loader WS-C3550-12T_A uptime is 1 week, 2 hours, 24 minutes System returned to ROM by power-on System image file is "flash:/c3550-i5q3l2-mz.121-8.EA1c/c3550-i5q3l2-mz.121-8.E 1c.bin" cisco WS-C3550-12T (PowerPC) processor (revision G0) with 65526K/8192K bytes of memory. WS-C3550-12T_A#conf t Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z. WS-C3550-12T_A(config)#router bgp ? Autonomous system number WS-C3550-12T_A(config)#router bgp Looks BGPish to me :) I'm trying to get one for my Lab at home.. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47980&t=47973 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Networkers Power Slides [7:47900]
Thanks Steve. Best regards, Cisco Breaker ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Oops, wrong link. > > pad > pad > pad > > http://www.cisco.com/networkers/nw02/presos.html > > > -- > RFC 1149 Compliant > > > > > ""Clayton Dukes"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I didn't see the power slides there, where are they? > > > > > > Clayton Dukes > > CCNA, CCDA, CCDP, CCNP, NCC > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Steven A. Ridder" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:09 AM > > Subject: Re: Networkers Power Slides [7:47900] > > > > > > > Found the link finally. > > > > > > pad > > > pad > > > > > > http://www.cisco.com/networkers/nw02/update/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > What are the power slides? But they are publically available, I just > > have > > > > to find the link > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""JohnZ"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Does any one have the link to the Power Slides from San Diego > > Networkers > > > > 02. > > > > > Are these even available yet. > > > > > Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47981&t=47900 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
