Re: can we NAT the destination IP using IOS's NAT nature? [7:7037]
Hi, I guess you can config a static nat mapping and reverse the inside and outside interface. that is , ip nat inside source static 192.168.3.31 50.100.167.102 interface e0 ip nat outside interface e1 ip nat inside -Michael "Sim, CT (Chee Tong)" wrote in message ... >Hi..dear all, > >We have a requirment to NAT a destination virtual IP to a different IP >behind the "Firewall". I have set up a cisco 2500 "packet filter" with 2 >interfaces ethernet0, 50.100.167.101 and ethernet1 192.168.3.2 and they are >in two different networks. There is a SUN host 192.168.3.31 (A) in >192.168.3.X network, We want to contact A in network 192.168.3.X from B >(50.100.167.199) in network 50.100.167.x via a virtual IP 50.100.167.102 in >eth0. What I mean when I connect to 50.100.167.102, I actually connect to >192.168.3.31, but people won't know the real IP of that. Can Cisco IOS >router do this? The information I get can only translate the source IP >address. How about destination address? If yes, can you show me how is the >command look like? > > >CT > >== >De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en >is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht >onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en >de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. >== >The information contained in this message may be confidential >and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you >receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents >herein and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > >== Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7037&t=7037 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: can we NAT the destination IP using IOS's NAT nature? [7: [7:7036]
Hi.. What I need is whatever service that I connected to 50.100.167.102 it will connect me to 192.168.3.31 If this cannot be done, can you show me one service by one service. -Original Message- From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 2:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: can we NAT the destination IP using IOS's NAT nature? [7: 7033] which services are you looking to redirect, any or just 1?? Brian - Original Message - From: "Sim, CT (Chee Tong)" To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:05 PM Subject: can we NAT the destination IP using IOS's NAT nature? [7:7032] > Hi..dear all, > > We have a requirment to NAT a destination virtual IP to a different IP > behind the "Firewall". I have set up a cisco 2500 "packet filter" with 2 > interfaces ethernet0, 50.100.167.101 and ethernet1 192.168.3.2 and they are > in two different networks. There is a SUN host 192.168.3.31 (A) in > 192.168.3.X network, We want to contact A in network 192.168.3.X from B > (50.100.167.199) in network 50.100.167.x via a virtual IP 50.100.167.102 in > eth0. What I mean when I connect to 50.100.167.102, I actually connect to > 192.168.3.31, but people won't know the real IP of that. Can Cisco IOS > router do this? The information I get can only translate the source IP > address. How about destination address? If yes, can you show me how is the > command look like? > > > CT > > == > De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en > is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht > onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en > de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. > == > The information contained in this message may be confidential > and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you > receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents > herein and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > > == == De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. == The information contained in this message may be confidential and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents herein and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. == Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7036&t=7036 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Need a helper to answer four questions [7:6974]
Actually, deleted aren't reported down by signalling, if you mean that the FR switch sends LMI info about them. Deleted means that they aren't being reported by LMI at all, but the router knows about them. If the PVC is down but the FR switch knows about it, it will be reported as inactive. It can be configured on the router and still be inactive, if the circuit's broken (e.g. a problem at the other end of the PVC). If you do a 'debug frame lmi', every minute the status of each PVC is reported by the switch. There will be a message for each active and inactive PVC (with status 0x2 and 0x0 respectively), but no message for deleted PVCs, because the switch doesn't know about them. Caveat - info above regarding switch messages applies to LMI type ANSI. I don't know if it applies to all LMI types. Also, partial mesh doesn't necessarily mean hub and spoke, although it's a common configuration. It just means full mesh with some of the links removed, which may turn it into hub and spoke or may just turn it into a collection of random links (hopefully bearing some resemblance to optimum traffic patterns :-) JMcL -- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 04/06/2001 02:36 pm --- "Doug Lockwood" @groupstudy.com on 04/06/2001 06:26:20 am Please respond to "Doug Lockwood" Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: RE: Need a helper to answer four questions [7:6974] "1. What is the two status on PVC mode ? In SVC, which have three status (call setup , transfer and call terminate). " I have seen 3 on both ATM and Frame Relay: Active, inactive and deleted. Active were circuits that are "up" Inactive were VC's that were not configured on that router that are discovered by signaling Deleted are VC's that are reported down by signaling. "4. What is benefit of partial mesh compare with fully mesh? It will use less routers or use less virtual circuits ?" A partial mesh costs less, compared to a full mesh. It will use the same number of routers, but less PVC's. Each pvc costs money and adds complexity. However, if most of the traffic is not destined for the hub, the hub and spoke adds latency and uses bandwidth on both links. Both designs are appropriate, depending on the nature of the traffic. Hope this helps. Doug Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7035&t=6974 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco May Bid for Marconi [7:7024]
Geeze!! Why not? I guess they already had this on mind when deciding to cut their own 15900 Lambda router. Now it makes more sense. Kent ""Circusnuts"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Geeze !!! Why !!! > > Phil > - Original Message - > From: Natasha > To: > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:52 PM > Subject: Cisco May Bid for Marconi [7:7024] > > > > London, June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Cisco Systems Inc. may make a 12 billion > > pound ($17 billion) bid for the U.K.'s Marconi Plc to increase sales in > > Europe, Sunday Business reported, citing unidentified industry sources. > > > http://www.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?T=marketsquote99_news.ht&s=AOxpdARUzQ2lzY > 28g > > > > Does anybody know anything about this? > > Thanks > > > > -- > > Natasha Flazynski > > CCNA, MCSE > > http://www.ciscobot.com > > My Cisco information site. > > http://www.botbuilders.com > > Artificial Intelligence and Linux development > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7034&t=7024 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: can we NAT the destination IP using IOS's NAT nature? [7:7033]
which services are you looking to redirect, any or just 1?? Brian - Original Message - From: "Sim, CT (Chee Tong)" To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:05 PM Subject: can we NAT the destination IP using IOS's NAT nature? [7:7032] > Hi..dear all, > > We have a requirment to NAT a destination virtual IP to a different IP > behind the "Firewall". I have set up a cisco 2500 "packet filter" with 2 > interfaces ethernet0, 50.100.167.101 and ethernet1 192.168.3.2 and they are > in two different networks. There is a SUN host 192.168.3.31 (A) in > 192.168.3.X network, We want to contact A in network 192.168.3.X from B > (50.100.167.199) in network 50.100.167.x via a virtual IP 50.100.167.102 in > eth0. What I mean when I connect to 50.100.167.102, I actually connect to > 192.168.3.31, but people won't know the real IP of that. Can Cisco IOS > router do this? The information I get can only translate the source IP > address. How about destination address? If yes, can you show me how is the > command look like? > > > CT > > == > De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en > is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht > onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en > de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. > == > The information contained in this message may be confidential > and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you > receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents > herein and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > > == Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7033&t=7033 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
can we NAT the destination IP using IOS's NAT nature? [7:7032]
Hi..dear all, We have a requirment to NAT a destination virtual IP to a different IP behind the "Firewall". I have set up a cisco 2500 "packet filter" with 2 interfaces ethernet0, 50.100.167.101 and ethernet1 192.168.3.2 and they are in two different networks. There is a SUN host 192.168.3.31 (A) in 192.168.3.X network, We want to contact A in network 192.168.3.X from B (50.100.167.199) in network 50.100.167.x via a virtual IP 50.100.167.102 in eth0. What I mean when I connect to 50.100.167.102, I actually connect to 192.168.3.31, but people won't know the real IP of that. Can Cisco IOS router do this? The information I get can only translate the source IP address. How about destination address? If yes, can you show me how is the command look like? CT == De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. == The information contained in this message may be confidential and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents herein and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. == Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7032&t=7032 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VoIP QoS [7:6586]
The Cisco AVVID guru's just told me to bail on LLQ and go to CBWFQ instead. Problems with code or just works better according to them. Tony #6172 - Original Message - From: Michael L. Williams To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 8:56 AM Subject: Re: VoIP QoS [7:6586] > I thought 768Kbps was the minimum you needed NOT to use LFI... at > 768Kbps, it takes ~15ms for a 1500byte frame to be put on the line. So even > if a couple 1500-byte ethernet frames came between your voice frames, it > would wouldn't be too bad... but depending on the queuing method, even > at 768Kbps, the regular ethernet traffic could indeed cause a problem... > you could use a priority queue to make sure that all the voice traffic > *always* goes through before any of the other traffic, but from what I > understand the LLQ is much better for these purposes. > > Mike W. > > "Brian" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > What codec are you using? If the speed of the link is T1 or less I would > > definitly do LFI. Otherwise large packets (1500 bytes) could be starving > > the voice from the minimum latency that it needs. > > > > Brian > > > > > > On Thu, 31 May 2001, Amit Gupta wrote: > > > > > Hi Everybody, > > > > > > I have configured the following parameters on the > > > serial interface for VoIP.The quality of the calls is > > > not very good during working hours you can feel some > > > delay/small interruptions while using it. > > > > > > interface serial 0 > > > ip tcp header-compression iphc-format > > > no ip mroute-cache > > > no fair-queue > > > ip rtp header-compression iphc-format > > > ip rtp priority 16384 16383 64 > > > > > > Could anybody suggest any other alternative to improve > > > the quality. > > > Will removing the compression help ? > > > Do I need to have something like Link Fragmentation > > > and Interleaving configured. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Amit > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > > > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > I'm buying / selling used CISCO gear!! > > email me for a quote > > > > Brian Feeny,CCDP,CCNP+VAS 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=7031&t=6586 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as5300 e1-r2 e1-pri [7:7030]
does as5300 support the e1-r2 and e1-pri both? i mean 1 controller for e1-r2 and the other for e1-pri at the same time! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7030&t=7030 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pinout for older cat1900 switch [7:7029]
Does anyone know the pinouts or the connectors/cables you would use on the older 1900 catalyst switch with the DB-9 connector as the console port. I have been to the cisco site and it seems I can use regular DB-9 connectors with a rollover cable but it doesnt work. Maybe there is a trick to them. Any help would be appreciated. TIA! George, Head Janitor, CCNA, CCDA Cisco Systems Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7029&t=7029 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: reverse telnet [7:6987]
Rich; You are spot on that RS-232 is only spec’ed for 50 ft. However, I have run RS-232 over 1000 ft at 9.6 kbps on wire that was not as good as cat5. My advice is to try it first, at any reasonable length, and only resort to active components if the tests fail. Just my experience. Anthony, the cable Rich is talking about is standard Ethernet patch cables. I use rj-45 couplers to attach the cable to the Cisco octal cable. Any computer store should have both. HTH Doug Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7028&t=6987 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BRI0 Backup Interface for Ethernet Primary Interface [7:7027]
Hi Everyone, I need to configure a ISDN link as backup for the primary interface. The primary interface is Ethernet1. I researched a numbers of books and they all are talk about serial or frame relay interface as the primary. I was able to search the archives and I found the identical problem that I am encountering. The post stated that yes the BRI0 interface can work as a backup for an ethernet interface. The following is a paste of the post(by Howard Berkowitz): "Yes. The key to the solution is to use a low-overhead routing protocol such as OSPF or EIGRP as a layer 3 keepalive mechanism." "Set up OSPF or EIGRP to define a path to the destination using the Ethernet. Set up a static route with administrative distance greater than that of the routing protocol (at least 200 is a good idea), with this static route going to the next hop address of the remote ISDN interface. If OSPF or EIGRP stop seeing hellos across the Ethernet, they will drop the route. The static route will now float up into the routing table, and you will get dial-on-demand routing across the ISDN. When OSPF sees its route again, after the Ethernet is back up, the Ethernet route will replace the ISDN in the active routing table, and the inactivity timer on the ISDN will disconnect it." I have followed the instructions, but no luck. When I shutdown the ethernet interface the BRI0 backup interface will not come up. The question I have are: 1. If I administratively shutdown the ethernet interface is that the same as if I disconnected the cable so that the e1 interface will not see a keepalive. 2. I did not see any other treads as to if solution worked. Has anyone run into this situation and has an answer or suggest anything. My config: interface Ethernet1 backup delay 0 3 backup interface BRI0 router eigrp 10 network 172.26.0.0 ip route 172.20.20.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.9.5 200 Lastly, one of the books (Internetworking & Troubleshooting by C. Long) stated something about layer 2 and the "no keepalive" option. It didn't go further on this issue and don't know if I understood it. If someone can explain, it would be much appreciated. Sorry for the long post. TIA KM _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7027&t=7027 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Subject: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
Is it possible you can post a sanitized config of R1 and R2? v/r, Paul Werner > Hi Group, > > In this simple environment: > >172.10.12.0/25 > R1R2 > > I run RIPv1 between R1 and R2, the network in between is 172.10.12.0/25, > on > R1 I have loopback0 which is 172.10.0.1/32 and another network > 172.10.11.0/28 > directly connected, I saw R1 distributes route 172.10.0.1/32 to R2, but > not > 172.10.11.0/28. > > I understand that 172.10.11.0/28 should not be distributed, but why /32 > route > is distributed, on R2 I saw route 172.10.0.1/32, how does R2 correctly > know > the mask is 32 bits, for I run RIPv1, packet doesn't carry mask. > > I also tried redistribute other /32 routes from OSPF to R1, R1 also > redistribute them to R2, why /32 routes are always redistributed out by > RIP. > > The versions are all 12.0. Get your own "800" number Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7026&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco May Bid for Marconi [7:7024]
Geeze !!! Why !!! Phil - Original Message - From: Natasha To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:52 PM Subject: Cisco May Bid for Marconi [7:7024] > London, June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Cisco Systems Inc. may make a 12 billion > pound ($17 billion) bid for the U.K.'s Marconi Plc to increase sales in > Europe, Sunday Business reported, citing unidentified industry sources. > http://www.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?T=marketsquote99_news.ht&s=AOxpdARUzQ2lzY 28g > > Does anybody know anything about this? > Thanks > > -- > Natasha Flazynski > CCNA, MCSE > http://www.ciscobot.com > My Cisco information site. > http://www.botbuilders.com > Artificial Intelligence and Linux development > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7025&t=7024 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cisco May Bid for Marconi [7:7024]
London, June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Cisco Systems Inc. may make a 12 billion pound ($17 billion) bid for the U.K.'s Marconi Plc to increase sales in Europe, Sunday Business reported, citing unidentified industry sources. http://www.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?T=marketsquote99_news.ht&s=AOxpdARUzQ2lzY28g Does anybody know anything about this? Thanks -- Natasha Flazynski CCNA, MCSE http://www.ciscobot.com My Cisco information site. http://www.botbuilders.com Artificial Intelligence and Linux development Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7024&t=7024 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
The routers I tested were in version 12.1T or 12.1E and also 12.0(1)T, I runs V1, for that's the default RIP config, to make sure, I added version 1 but no luck. After sent out the mail I tested another 1600 which runs 12.0(0.20)T, this guys runs differently -- doesn't propagate its loopback address, sounds like a IOS change in 12.X. Thanks, Jerry - Original Message - From: "Circusnuts" To: "Jerry Seven" ; Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 3:33 PM Subject: Re: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010] > The /32 Subnet Mask in your Show IP Route, is OSPF earmarking the loopbacks. > I believe it's 12.1 where this goes away, though I do not know what the > advantage would be. > > Phil > > - Original Message - > From: Jerry Seven > To: > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 6:27 PM > Subject: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010] > > > > Hi Group, > > > > In this simple environment: > > > >172.10.12.0/25 > > R1R2 > > > > I run RIPv1 between R1 and R2, the network in between is 172.10.12.0/25, > on > > R1 I have loopback0 which is 172.10.0.1/32 and another network > 172.10.11.0/28 > > directly connected, I saw R1 distributes route 172.10.0.1/32 to R2, but > not > > 172.10.11.0/28. > > > > I understand that 172.10.11.0/28 should not be distributed, but why /32 > route > > is distributed, on R2 I saw route 172.10.0.1/32, how does R2 correctly > know > > the mask is 32 bits, for I run RIPv1, packet doesn't carry mask. > > > > I also tried redistribute other /32 routes from OSPF to R1, R1 also > > redistribute them to R2, why /32 routes are always redistributed out by > RIP. > > > > The versions are all 12.0. > > > > Thanks, > > Jerry _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7023&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Undeliverable: Cisco Certification Digest V2 #1334 [7:7022]
Your message To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cisco Certification Digest V2 #1334 Sent:Sun, 3 Jun 2001 09:41:29 +1000 did not reach the following recipient(s): Bruce Horkings on Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:00:17 +1000 The recipient could not be processed due to congestion in the message transfer service The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=AU;a= ;p=Crane;l=HERMES010603LYJBSD2N MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:TRADELINK:HERMES [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type application/ms-tnef] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7022&t=7022 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Redundancy design question [7:6646]
Jon, There was a thread a few weeks ago that discussed this as well - sorry, can't think of the subject, but try the archives. I think most solutions simply involve adding another WAN link (either permanent or dial on demand), because (in my experience anyway) WAN links are far more likely to break than routers. So adding lots of router redundancy follows diminishing returns when it's your single WAN link that fails most. Don't put too much faith in telcos providing redundant paths - a couple of weeks ago 'Bob the backhoe man' dug up some cables and took out all comms access to a sizeable chunk of NSW for almost a day - in an area where the telco supposedly has plenty of redundant paths. I realise that that's not the solution you're discussing, but it means that other solutions are less likely to be discussed because people have less experience of them. JMcL -- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 04/06/2001 10:50 am --- "Jon" @groupstudy.com on 01/06/2001 07:38:01 am Please respond to "Jon" Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: RE: Redundancy design question [7:6646] Keep in mind, this is not the typical "help me design/fix my network for free" question. I have been reading various papers, chapters, and case studies, and am trying to get my head wrapped around the details, now. I've built some scenarios in my head, trying to see problems and solutions, rather than ways to buy more gear. I'm also not trying to solve the WAN redundancy problem, just trying to get the WAN to connect into my LAN redundancy solution. The fundamental problem I'm trying to solve is how to protect against any hardware failure of my core devices knocking out normal operations. I am not concerned with protecting against any other faults outside my direct control (e.g. loss of WAN circuit, loss of server, Howard sets off a tactical device in the CO, etc.). For the sake of having a straw man to burn: A remote site is connected to the main office over a SHNS/SONET DS-3 connection, with full SONET protection to the demarc equipment on the wall of the MDF. (To limit the discussion scope, I will only describe the remote site -- we will assume the main facility is impervious to faults). The telco provides a coax connection for connecting the router to their gear. Equipment in the MDF includes: a 7206 with a DS-3 module and a FE module, a Cat4006 with multiple GBIC blade and 10/100 blade. There are three IDF wiring closets, one per floor, each with a Cat4006 fully populated with 10/100 blades. Each IDF switch is connected over a single GBIC/GigE connection to the MDF switch. All users are connected to their IDF over a single Cat5 run. All servers are connected (single-homed) to the MDF switch. To add some protection to this model, I will add a second Cat4006 in the MDF, with the same blades as the first. I will also dual-home all the servers to both MDF switches -- assume that the proper NICs are present to allow this, and that they are properly configured. I am now protected against the loss of one of my blades, or chassis, or running over a single cable with my handy BOFH rolling chair. But, my router might break, so I need to protect against that risk. Add a second 7206, same blades, dual-homed to both switches. Except I only have one coax cable from the demarc to carry the WAN signal. How do I connect the coax to two router blades, so that both routers could use the media? Or, is there a type of service available that allows for physical failover of the connection, provided by the circuit provider -- note that this isn't a second complete circuit, just a split demarc connection. Any ideas? Or is this too theoretical -- not a real enough scenario? Real world solutions might well include a second circuit, of sufficient bandwidth to "get by" until a repair is effected. Or provisioning two circuits for load balancing, with each capable of "get by" bandwidth in a fault state. But, I'm seeing a few cases where the answer presented is to double up on equipment -- never stating (perhaps always assumed) that you'll also be doubling up on all your WAN circuits to make it work. -jon- --- Chuck Larrieu wrote: > Asked because I don't know: how do you plan on making the switches > redundant? How are your servers, for example homed on the switches? Is > it > real redundancy if closet switches are dual homed to core switches? Is > your > internet connection, your firewall, etc dual homed as well? > > Chuck > The world is a single point of failure :-> > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Jon > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 12:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Redundancy design question [7:6646] > > I've been reading about designing physical redundancy into networks, by > having hot standby devices and using HSRP between them. As an example, > if > a site has
Re: another OT: why you UNIX guys look down on we NT guys? [7:7020]
LOL Like I said, you don't understand. :-) ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Yes, please.. let's end this > > I understand news servers, Sir. I've configured and installed many of them. > They're not complex. I understand them enough to know that if you weren't > scared to, you could take 10 seconds in your news reader to enter your REAL > name and e-mail address. I also understand that you're not brave enough to > because all you've given is nothing but fake names, e-mail addresses, and > credentials the whole time. > > Please don't waste anymore bandwidth until you're ready to stop hiding > behind a shield of anonymity. > > "Me" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > You must be a GREAT GURU who couldn't even even figure out how the > > groupstudy news server works and how you have been getting your mails.. ha > > ha ha > > Could someone tell this poor guy how the news server for groupstudy have > > been configured so that he can understand I think it's too > complicated > > !!! In any case, don't bother emailing me because talking to you would be > a > > absolute waste of time if you cannot understand a simple news-server, how > > can I even discuss anything technical with you ha ha ha. > > > > Let's end this... > > > > > > ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > You don't even deserve a rebuttal, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". You won't > > even > > > say who you are.. 50,000 workstations my ass while you're making > > up > > > fake credentials, why not just say it was 100,000 workstations or 1 > > million. > > > > > > "Me" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Guess I have not read any CCNA books recently > > > > > > > > I won't even bother to flame you for the "joke??" . When you find me a > > > unix > > > > admin who can plan the deployment of 50,000 workstation and > successfully > > > > roll it out, we can discuss again > > > > > > > > ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > In case you haven't noticed, most CCNA books point out the fact that > > the > > > > IOS > > > > > uses a "Unix-ish" shell, with command line completion, etc. just > like > > > > Unix. > > > > > > > > > > Some of the low end equipment, like the 700 series and the 1900s > allow > > > you > > > > > to use a web interface, but virtually everything else is command > > > line. > > > > > > > > > > Can you provide facts showing that the IOS *isn't* Unix-ish? > Perhaps > > > > Cisco > > > > > is working on a GUI, (don't flame me for this ... it's a joke), > > they're > > > > > working on a GUI so all the NT admins can have a chance at becoming > > > Cisco > > > > > gurus =) > > > > > > > > > > Mike W. (former NT admin) > > > > > > > > > > "Jason" wrote in message > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > > Oh, now the IOS is Unixish ?? Phew, so by that token, all Unix > > experts > > > > > would > > > > > > be CCIE... so I guess the number would include all the so call > > > > Unix/Linux > > > > > > "experts" > > > > > > I don't remember mentioning that the ATM runs NT, most of them > > > actually > > > > > run > > > > > > OS2. The extra $$ you save from using open?? source OS would be > > waste > > > on > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > > > In case you have not notice, Cisco is working on a GUI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Kelly Hair"" wrote in message > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > > > "Jason" - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By your logic, Windows NT 3.1 is all you need for your > Enterprise > > to > > > > > > > succeed. Good luck in that endevour! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to your other point, yes, I would trust my ATM > server > > to > > > > > > Linux. > > > > > > > The blue screen is pretty but I would prefer to have money > > instead. > > > > > Oh.. > > > > > > > not to mention the extra money I would have from using a an open > > > > source > > > > > OS > > > > > > > rather than an M$ one... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps Cisco should throw out the Unixish IOS and replace it > with > > a > > > > GUI > > > > > > so > > > > > > > everyone could write configs for routers. Sounds like a grand > > > idea... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Kelly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What was your point ? That Multics sucks , and by the same > > token, > > > > > > > > therefore Unix sucks and NT/W2K rules !!! At least, NT/W2K was > > > based > > > > > on > > > > > > > > a working operating system. Anyone of you notice that Unix is > > all > > > > > about > > > > > > > > ego ? If Unix is finished in 1 month, why are there still > people > > > > > > > > working on it ? On the other hand, if Unix is perfect, why the > > > hell
Any know of how to get PPOE on WIN2K server working with [7:7019]
HI All, Quick ADSL question. Does any body have a hack or a suggestion of how to get PPOE working on a WIN2k server on TELSTRA ADSL ???/ How does this add to the cisco learning channel that is groupstudy.com , well it doesn't sorry but there has been so much crap lately I thought my quetsion would not hurt. Thanks all John Sydney, Australia Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7019&t=7019 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to configure 1601 to load balance 2 Internet circuits [7:7018]
Wouldn't it make more sense to do CEF packet-by-packet? (a lot less load on the router than process switching), If you wanted it to do it at all... It would kind of scare me to turn in on in this case because there is a GREAT chance of packets arriving out of order (the ones that go out the fast connection would arrive sooner)... Session-by-session would seem to fit a little better when the links are so varied in bandwidth. http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios112/ios112p/gsr/ cef.htm#xtocid2626427 in global: ip cef on each interface that traffic can go out: ip load-sharing per-packet to verify, sh ip cef 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0, this will say either per destination or packet Thanks -Nate "Kelly Hair" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > And turn off fast switching if you want per packet load balancing: > > int s0 > no ip route-cache > > If you do not need process switching then leave the interface it its default > switching mode.. I would think you would want to load balance per packet > so it appears to be equally slow/fast as compared to "this connection rocks" > and "why does this connection suck so bad?" > > > > Assuming the traffic is IP another modifications you can look at that would > be pretty easy to setup: > > Setting ip policy on the BRI/serial interfaces with the T1 interface > transporting packets matching a route-map of say 400 bytes to 1500 bytes and > those smaller going across the BRI... > > It would look something like this: > > int bri0 > ip address a.a.a.a x.x.x.x > > int s0 > ip address b.b.b.b x.x.x.x > > int eth0 > ip addresss c.c.c.c x.x.x.x > ip route-cache policy > ip policy route-map inet > > route-map inet permit 10 > match length 400 1500 > set ip next-hop > > route-map inet permit 20 > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 > > > > HTH > Kelly > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Nygard" > To: > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 4:59 PM > Subject: Re: How to configure 1601 to load balance 2 Internet circuits > [7:6911] > > > > Hello Justin, > > > > The easiest way to resolve this would be to use multiple default routes > from > > global configuration: > > > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 > > > > The router will load balance between the 2 routes. > > > > Thank you, > > Mike Nygard > > > > > > ""Justin Lofton"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I have a customer that has a 128k connection to the Internet and they > are > > > bringing in a T1 to the Internet but they want to load balance on both > > > circuits for a week to be sure the new circuit is working properly. > What > > is > > > the simpliest way to configure this scenario? Can I set multiple last > > > resort gateways or what? Please help! > > > > > > Thanks everyone! > > > > > > Justin Lofton > > > Account Executive/CCNA > > > Tredent Data Systems > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > V: (818) 222-3770 > > > F: (818) 222-3778 > > > http://www.tredent.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7018&t=7018 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Need a helper to answer four questions [7:6974]
I sure am glad you answered that. It also helped me. Jenn Cribbs >= Original Message From "Doug Lockwood" = >"1. What is the two status on PVC mode ? In SVC, which have three status >(call setup , transfer and call terminate). " > >I have seen 3 on both ATM and Frame Relay: >Active, inactive and deleted. > >Active were circuits that are "up" >Inactive were VC's that were not configured on that router that are >discovered by signaling >Deleted are VC's that are reported down by signaling. > >"2. Frame Relay is a protocol name or protocol type?" >Hard question to answer. >Frame Relay is the name of a Layer 1 and 2 transport protocol for Wide area >networks. It was an upgrade from x.25, designed for higher speed lines with >lower error rates. > >"3. In IPX RIP, if one router is down. The other router will send three time >keep alive packet to the dead router. If no response, this router will >delete from the routing table. How about oin IP RIP?" > >IP and IPX RIP function Similarly. The entire RIP Database is sent every 30 >seconds for IP RIP and every 60 seconds for IPX >RIP. IN IP RIP, if routing updates from a neighboring router have not >arrived within 180 seconds, the routes learned from that router are marked >invalid and the holddown timer of 180 seconds is started. >if no updates arrive in that 180 seconds, the routes are removed from the >routing table. >Note, the "keepalive" is one or more packets that contain the full routing >information of the router. > >"4. What is benefit of partial mesh compare with fully mesh? It will use >less routers or use less virtual circuits ?" > >A partial mesh costs less, compared to a full mesh. It will use the same >number of routers, but less PVC's. Each pvc costs money and adds >complexity. However, if most of the traffic is not destined for the hub, >the hub and spoke adds latency and uses bandwidth on both links. Both >designs are appropriate, depending on the nature of the traffic. > >Hope this helps. > >Doug Have a great day! Jenn Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7017&t=6974 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
Are you running ppp and getting a "peer neighbor-route" of the IP on the other end... This can be turned off by "no peer neighbor-route" on the interface, and having ppp re-negotiate. Thanks -Nate "Jerry Seven" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi Group, > > In this simple environment: > >172.10.12.0/25 > R1R2 > > I run RIPv1 between R1 and R2, the network in between is 172.10.12.0/25, on > R1 I have loopback0 which is 172.10.0.1/32 and another network 172.10.11.0/28 > directly connected, I saw R1 distributes route 172.10.0.1/32 to R2, but not > 172.10.11.0/28. > > I understand that 172.10.11.0/28 should not be distributed, but why /32 route > is distributed, on R2 I saw route 172.10.0.1/32, how does R2 correctly know > the mask is 32 bits, for I run RIPv1, packet doesn't carry mask. > > I also tried redistribute other /32 routes from OSPF to R1, R1 also > redistribute them to R2, why /32 routes are always redistributed out by RIP. > > The versions are all 12.0. > > Thanks, > Jerry Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7016&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NTOP ver 2.X and EtherApe [7:7015]
You must load these two packages they are the best I have seen in the LINUX world for network management. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7015&t=7015 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
Just a thought. Are you really running rip V1 or are you running Rip V2 in compatibly mode. The first config would look like: Router Rip Net 172.10.0.0 The second would look like: Router rip version 1 net 172.10.0.0 Just a thought. Doug Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7014&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: reverse telnet [7:6987]
I only need to extend about 10 feet. Is that one of the cables that has a black ends with 8 RJ45 ports on each end? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7013&t=6987 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Encryption+Compression [7:7012]
Hello, Is it good to both compress and encrypt data going out of an interface? Thanks Law Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7012&t=7012 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
The /32 Subnet Mask in your Show IP Route, is OSPF earmarking the loopbacks. I believe it's 12.1 where this goes away, though I do not know what the advantage would be. Phil - Original Message - From: Jerry Seven To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 6:27 PM Subject: RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010] > Hi Group, > > In this simple environment: > >172.10.12.0/25 > R1R2 > > I run RIPv1 between R1 and R2, the network in between is 172.10.12.0/25, on > R1 I have loopback0 which is 172.10.0.1/32 and another network 172.10.11.0/28 > directly connected, I saw R1 distributes route 172.10.0.1/32 to R2, but not > 172.10.11.0/28. > > I understand that 172.10.11.0/28 should not be distributed, but why /32 route > is distributed, on R2 I saw route 172.10.0.1/32, how does R2 correctly know > the mask is 32 bits, for I run RIPv1, packet doesn't carry mask. > > I also tried redistribute other /32 routes from OSPF to R1, R1 also > redistribute them to R2, why /32 routes are always redistributed out by RIP. > > The versions are all 12.0. > > Thanks, > Jerry Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7011&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RIPv1: why /32 route is distributed [7:7010]
Hi Group, In this simple environment: 172.10.12.0/25 R1R2 I run RIPv1 between R1 and R2, the network in between is 172.10.12.0/25, on R1 I have loopback0 which is 172.10.0.1/32 and another network 172.10.11.0/28 directly connected, I saw R1 distributes route 172.10.0.1/32 to R2, but not 172.10.11.0/28. I understand that 172.10.11.0/28 should not be distributed, but why /32 route is distributed, on R2 I saw route 172.10.0.1/32, how does R2 correctly know the mask is 32 bits, for I run RIPv1, packet doesn't carry mask. I also tried redistribute other /32 routes from OSPF to R1, R1 also redistribute them to R2, why /32 routes are always redistributed out by RIP. The versions are all 12.0. Thanks, Jerry Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7010&t=7010 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
Oh come on Louie, I know your the real Messiah, after all I should know I've followed a few. K - Original Message - From: "Louie Belt" To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 7:25 PM Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > I have had numerous requests and have been unable to help everyone or answer > everyone's questions. I do not have the time to help all that ask. I'll be > the first to admit that I have "ignored a number of email message due to > time constraints. But you will also find a number of people that I have > helped and some that I continue to help in a very focused manner. > > I'm not applying for saint-hood and don't intend to, but I don't have time > to answer every individual request. > > My responses would be the same that I have seen on this site a multitude of > times: > > As for books: > > TCP/IP Volume I and Volume II are a must. > > Caslow's 2nd edition is also a must have. > > Halibi is good for theory but lacks good examples with router configs. > > McGraw Hill's Bridging, DLSW+ and Desktop Protocols is a must as well (skip > the appletalk section) > > Stay away from the CCIE all in one LAB study guide - it is a waste of time. > > > CCBootcamp still offers the best labs for preparation, Mentor labs is OK for > small practice labs on specific issues. > > Use the documentation CD to find all answers - no matter how painful it is. > Practice timing and methodology. Intermix IOS versions in you lab. And of > course practice, practice, practice - time managment is critical. > > > Louie > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Cisco Kidd > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:57 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > > > I don't want to bash you Louie but I sent you an email a couple of months > ago and asked for some opinions on what books I should purchase for the > CCIE lab( I supplied a list of the ones I thought) and if the study > methods I was employing were adequate in preparation for the lab and > didn't get a response ( I didn't ask for specifics such as IOS verions on > the lab or topics covered in your lab) I know that you are probably busy > as a CCIE, but I just want you and everyone else to know that you are not > as helpful as you advertise yourself to be. > > > > >From: "Louie Belt" >Reply-To: "Louie Belt" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] >Date: Sat, 2 Jun > 2001 23:06:15 -0400 > >Yes you are wrong (about my perspective). I have > helped several engineers >study for and pass the CCIE written as well as > the lab. My concern is in >preserving the value of the cert. As for > dog-eat-dog I'll help anyone who is >sincere and wants to learn - > providing they are willing to put in the >effort. However, I will not > "give them the answers" so that they can make >the value of my cert less. > > >Prior to so much study material being available, you had to study and > know >how to handle a wide array of issues, the specifics as to what is > on the lab >were simply unknown and therefore you had to be prepared for > anything - and >know it well. Now that the study materials have become > available, it allows >a candidate to be more focused on lab specific > issues instead of on routing >and swicthing in general. As a result a > candidate can now pass the lab >without having a decent broad knowledge > of routing and switching, they just >need to know how to prepare for the > lab. That in my opinion has devalued >the certification. > >If we have > 100,000 CCIEs all of which know there stuff and are a credit to >the > certification then I have no problem with it. It we have 8000 CCIEs and > >1000 of them can't live up to the expectations of the certification, > then it >hurts the value not only of the other 7000, but also of any > future >recipients of the certification. > >I am not bitter or angry > (thanks for jumping to conclusions) that the study >guides weren't > around, some were when I received my cert and I certainly >used them. I > don't want them to go away. I own many of the books written by >other > CCIEs and use them as a reference quite often. I am thankful they are > >available. The materials that exist have the potential to help all of > us. My >issue is simply one of "The CCIE certification should not be > devaulued" - >that is my chief concern and my reason for answering the > survey the way I >did. The only reason I posted my response to the survey > was because I was >asked to do so. I apologize if my opinions differ from > yours and you are >therefore offended. It was not my intention to offend > you. You most >certainly are entitled to your opinion and I don't expect > to change your >mind. > > >Hope this clears things up a bit, otherwise > we'll have to just agree to >disagree. > >Louie > >-Original > Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Bradley J.
Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
Oh come on Louie, I know your the real Messiah, after all I should know I've followed a few. K - Original Message - From: "Louie Belt" To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 7:25 PM Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > I have had numerous requests and have been unable to help everyone or answer > everyone's questions. I do not have the time to help all that ask. I'll be > the first to admit that I have "ignored a number of email message due to > time constraints. But you will also find a number of people that I have > helped and some that I continue to help in a very focused manner. > > I'm not applying for saint-hood and don't intend to, but I don't have time > to answer every individual request. > > My responses would be the same that I have seen on this site a multitude of > times: > > As for books: > > TCP/IP Volume I and Volume II are a must. > > Caslow's 2nd edition is also a must have. > > Halibi is good for theory but lacks good examples with router configs. > > McGraw Hill's Bridging, DLSW+ and Desktop Protocols is a must as well (skip > the appletalk section) > > Stay away from the CCIE all in one LAB study guide - it is a waste of time. > > > CCBootcamp still offers the best labs for preparation, Mentor labs is OK for > small practice labs on specific issues. > > Use the documentation CD to find all answers - no matter how painful it is. > Practice timing and methodology. Intermix IOS versions in you lab. And of > course practice, practice, practice - time managment is critical. > > > Louie > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Cisco Kidd > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:57 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > > > I don't want to bash you Louie but I sent you an email a couple of months > ago and asked for some opinions on what books I should purchase for the > CCIE lab( I supplied a list of the ones I thought) and if the study > methods I was employing were adequate in preparation for the lab and > didn't get a response ( I didn't ask for specifics such as IOS verions on > the lab or topics covered in your lab) I know that you are probably busy > as a CCIE, but I just want you and everyone else to know that you are not > as helpful as you advertise yourself to be. > > > > >From: "Louie Belt" >Reply-To: "Louie Belt" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] >Date: Sat, 2 Jun > 2001 23:06:15 -0400 > >Yes you are wrong (about my perspective). I have > helped several engineers >study for and pass the CCIE written as well as > the lab. My concern is in >preserving the value of the cert. As for > dog-eat-dog I'll help anyone who is >sincere and wants to learn - > providing they are willing to put in the >effort. However, I will not > "give them the answers" so that they can make >the value of my cert less. > > >Prior to so much study material being available, you had to study and > know >how to handle a wide array of issues, the specifics as to what is > on the lab >were simply unknown and therefore you had to be prepared for > anything - and >know it well. Now that the study materials have become > available, it allows >a candidate to be more focused on lab specific > issues instead of on routing >and swicthing in general. As a result a > candidate can now pass the lab >without having a decent broad knowledge > of routing and switching, they just >need to know how to prepare for the > lab. That in my opinion has devalued >the certification. > >If we have > 100,000 CCIEs all of which know there stuff and are a credit to >the > certification then I have no problem with it. It we have 8000 CCIEs and > >1000 of them can't live up to the expectations of the certification, > then it >hurts the value not only of the other 7000, but also of any > future >recipients of the certification. > >I am not bitter or angry > (thanks for jumping to conclusions) that the study >guides weren't > around, some were when I received my cert and I certainly >used them. I > don't want them to go away. I own many of the books written by >other > CCIEs and use them as a reference quite often. I am thankful they are > >available. The materials that exist have the potential to help all of > us. My >issue is simply one of "The CCIE certification should not be > devaulued" - >that is my chief concern and my reason for answering the > survey the way I >did. The only reason I posted my response to the survey > was because I was >asked to do so. I apologize if my opinions differ from > yours and you are >therefore offended. It was not my intention to offend > you. You most >certainly are entitled to your opinion and I don't expect > to change your >mind. > > >Hope this clears things up a bit, otherwise > we'll have to just agree to >disagree. > >Louie > >-Original > Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Bradley J.
Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
Oh come on Louie, I know your the real Messiah, after all I should know I've followed a few. K - Original Message - From: "Louie Belt" To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 7:25 PM Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > I have had numerous requests and have been unable to help everyone or answer > everyone's questions. I do not have the time to help all that ask. I'll be > the first to admit that I have "ignored a number of email message due to > time constraints. But you will also find a number of people that I have > helped and some that I continue to help in a very focused manner. > > I'm not applying for saint-hood and don't intend to, but I don't have time > to answer every individual request. > > My responses would be the same that I have seen on this site a multitude of > times: > > As for books: > > TCP/IP Volume I and Volume II are a must. > > Caslow's 2nd edition is also a must have. > > Halibi is good for theory but lacks good examples with router configs. > > McGraw Hill's Bridging, DLSW+ and Desktop Protocols is a must as well (skip > the appletalk section) > > Stay away from the CCIE all in one LAB study guide - it is a waste of time. > > > CCBootcamp still offers the best labs for preparation, Mentor labs is OK for > small practice labs on specific issues. > > Use the documentation CD to find all answers - no matter how painful it is. > Practice timing and methodology. Intermix IOS versions in you lab. And of > course practice, practice, practice - time managment is critical. > > > Louie > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Cisco Kidd > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:57 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > > > I don't want to bash you Louie but I sent you an email a couple of months > ago and asked for some opinions on what books I should purchase for the > CCIE lab( I supplied a list of the ones I thought) and if the study > methods I was employing were adequate in preparation for the lab and > didn't get a response ( I didn't ask for specifics such as IOS verions on > the lab or topics covered in your lab) I know that you are probably busy > as a CCIE, but I just want you and everyone else to know that you are not > as helpful as you advertise yourself to be. > > > > >From: "Louie Belt" >Reply-To: "Louie Belt" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] >Date: Sat, 2 Jun > 2001 23:06:15 -0400 > >Yes you are wrong (about my perspective). I have > helped several engineers >study for and pass the CCIE written as well as > the lab. My concern is in >preserving the value of the cert. As for > dog-eat-dog I'll help anyone who is >sincere and wants to learn - > providing they are willing to put in the >effort. However, I will not > "give them the answers" so that they can make >the value of my cert less. > > >Prior to so much study material being available, you had to study and > know >how to handle a wide array of issues, the specifics as to what is > on the lab >were simply unknown and therefore you had to be prepared for > anything - and >know it well. Now that the study materials have become > available, it allows >a candidate to be more focused on lab specific > issues instead of on routing >and swicthing in general. As a result a > candidate can now pass the lab >without having a decent broad knowledge > of routing and switching, they just >need to know how to prepare for the > lab. That in my opinion has devalued >the certification. > >If we have > 100,000 CCIEs all of which know there stuff and are a credit to >the > certification then I have no problem with it. It we have 8000 CCIEs and > >1000 of them can't live up to the expectations of the certification, > then it >hurts the value not only of the other 7000, but also of any > future >recipients of the certification. > >I am not bitter or angry > (thanks for jumping to conclusions) that the study >guides weren't > around, some were when I received my cert and I certainly >used them. I > don't want them to go away. I own many of the books written by >other > CCIEs and use them as a reference quite often. I am thankful they are > >available. The materials that exist have the potential to help all of > us. My >issue is simply one of "The CCIE certification should not be > devaulued" - >that is my chief concern and my reason for answering the > survey the way I >did. The only reason I posted my response to the survey > was because I was >asked to do so. I apologize if my opinions differ from > yours and you are >therefore offended. It was not my intention to offend > you. You most >certainly are entitled to your opinion and I don't expect > to change your >mind. > > >Hope this clears things up a bit, otherwise > we'll have to just agree to >disagree. > >Louie > >-Original > Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Bradley J.
RE: Q. About the Management of Cisco [7:6995]
David and Shirley Thielen have a book on this very subject. You can find it at: http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2OCAV0QRB8&; mscssid=EK1GKG4FXEAA8JTQ821C7VA958EKFLKB&isbn=0071364161 IU hope this helps. Feargal -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Samuel Ho Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Q. About the Management of Cisco [7:6995] Hi all Recently I am working on my reserach paper with the topic of the management of Cisco. I hope anyone who is/was working in this company or who is experienced can give me some info on how they manage their different departments. Of course I've read some books about that, but I want to have some real experience info as my reference. By the way, I love to have an open discussion on that as well. Thank you very much. Regards, Sam _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7006&t=6995 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to configure 1601 to load balance 2 Internet circuits [7:7005]
Uhh, hes gonna either need to run a routing protocol with his provider, or make two equal cost/distance default routes as well. - Original Message - From: "Kelly Hair" To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 2:13 PM Subject: Re: How to configure 1601 to load balance 2 Internet circuits [7:6996] > And turn off fast switching if you want per packet load balancing: > > int s0 > no ip route-cache > > If you do not need process switching then leave the interface it its default > switching mode.. I would think you would want to load balance per packet > so it appears to be equally slow/fast as compared to "this connection rocks" > and "why does this connection suck so bad?" > > > > Assuming the traffic is IP another modifications you can look at that would > be pretty easy to setup: > > Setting ip policy on the BRI/serial interfaces with the T1 interface > transporting packets matching a route-map of say 400 bytes to 1500 bytes and > those smaller going across the BRI... > > It would look something like this: > > int bri0 > ip address a.a.a.a x.x.x.x > > int s0 > ip address b.b.b.b x.x.x.x > > int eth0 > ip addresss c.c.c.c x.x.x.x > ip route-cache policy > ip policy route-map inet > > route-map inet permit 10 > match length 400 1500 > set ip next-hop > > route-map inet permit 20 > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 > > > > HTH > Kelly > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Nygard" > To: > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 4:59 PM > Subject: Re: How to configure 1601 to load balance 2 Internet circuits > [7:6911] > > > > Hello Justin, > > > > The easiest way to resolve this would be to use multiple default routes > from > > global configuration: > > > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 > > > > The router will load balance between the 2 routes. > > > > Thank you, > > Mike Nygard > > > > > > ""Justin Lofton"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I have a customer that has a 128k connection to the Internet and they > are > > > bringing in a T1 to the Internet but they want to load balance on both > > > circuits for a week to be sure the new circuit is working properly. > What > > is > > > the simpliest way to configure this scenario? Can I set multiple last > > > resort gateways or what? Please help! > > > > > > Thanks everyone! > > > > > > Justin Lofton > > > Account Executive/CCNA > > > Tredent Data Systems > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > V: (818) 222-3770 > > > F: (818) 222-3778 > > > http://www.tredent.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7005&t=7005 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Need a helper to answer four questions [7:6974]
"1. What is the two status on PVC mode ? In SVC, which have three status (call setup , transfer and call terminate). " I have seen 3 on both ATM and Frame Relay: Active, inactive and deleted. Active were circuits that are "up" Inactive were VC's that were not configured on that router that are discovered by signaling Deleted are VC's that are reported down by signaling. "2. Frame Relay is a protocol name or protocol type?" Hard question to answer. Frame Relay is the name of a Layer 1 and 2 transport protocol for Wide area networks. It was an upgrade from x.25, designed for higher speed lines with lower error rates. "3. In IPX RIP, if one router is down. The other router will send three time keep alive packet to the dead router. If no response, this router will delete from the routing table. How about oin IP RIP?" IP and IPX RIP function Similarly. The entire RIP Database is sent every 30 seconds for IP RIP and every 60 seconds for IPX RIP. IN IP RIP, if routing updates from a neighboring router have not arrived within 180 seconds, the routes learned from that router are marked invalid and the holddown timer of 180 seconds is started. if no updates arrive in that 180 seconds, the routes are removed from the routing table. Note, the "keepalive" is one or more packets that contain the full routing information of the router. "4. What is benefit of partial mesh compare with fully mesh? It will use less routers or use less virtual circuits ?" A partial mesh costs less, compared to a full mesh. It will use the same number of routers, but less PVC's. Each pvc costs money and adds complexity. However, if most of the traffic is not destined for the hub, the hub and spoke adds latency and uses bandwidth on both links. Both designs are appropriate, depending on the nature of the traffic. Hope this helps. Doug Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7004&t=6974 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
I apologize to you Louie because I know you are busy. Thanks for the info. >From: "Louie Belt" >Reply-To: "Louie Belt" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] >Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 14:25:59 -0400 > >I have had numerous requests and have been unable to help everyone or answer >everyone's questions. I do not have the time to help all that ask. I'll be >the first to admit that I have "ignored a number of email message due to >time constraints. But you will also find a number of people that I have >helped and some that I continue to help in a very focused manner. > >I'm not applying for saint-hood and don't intend to, but I don't have time >to answer every individual request. > >My responses would be the same that I have seen on this site a multitude of >times: > >As for books: > >TCP/IP Volume I and Volume II are a must. > >Caslow's 2nd edition is also a must have. > >Halibi is good for theory but lacks good examples with router configs. > >McGraw Hill's Bridging, DLSW+ and Desktop Protocols is a must as well (skip >the appletalk section) > >Stay away from the CCIE all in one LAB study guide - it is a waste of time. > > >CCBootcamp still offers the best labs for preparation, Mentor labs is OK for >small practice labs on specific issues. > >Use the documentation CD to find all answers - no matter how painful it is. >Practice timing and methodology. Intermix IOS versions in you lab. And of >course practice, practice, practice - time managment is critical. > > >Louie > > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Cisco Kidd >Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:57 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > > >I don't want to bash you Louie but I sent you an email a couple of months >ago and asked for some opinions on what books I should purchase for the >CCIE lab( I supplied a list of the ones I thought) and if the study >methods I was employing were adequate in preparation for the lab and >didn't get a response ( I didn't ask for specifics such as IOS verions on >the lab or topics covered in your lab) I know that you are probably busy >as a CCIE, but I just want you and everyone else to know that you are not >as helpful as you advertise yourself to be. > > > > >From: "Louie Belt" >Reply-To: "Louie Belt" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] >Date: Sat, 2 Jun >2001 23:06:15 -0400 > >Yes you are wrong (about my perspective). I have >helped several engineers >study for and pass the CCIE written as well as >the lab. My concern is in >preserving the value of the cert. As for >dog-eat-dog I'll help anyone who is >sincere and wants to learn - >providing they are willing to put in the >effort. However, I will not >"give them the answers" so that they can make >the value of my cert less. > > >Prior to so much study material being available, you had to study and >know >how to handle a wide array of issues, the specifics as to what is >on the lab >were simply unknown and therefore you had to be prepared for >anything - and >know it well. Now that the study materials have become >available, it allows >a candidate to be more focused on lab specific >issues instead of on routing >and swicthing in general. As a result a >candidate can now pass the lab >without having a decent broad knowledge >of routing and switching, they just >need to know how to prepare for the >lab. That in my opinion has devalued >the certification. > >If we have >100,000 CCIEs all of which know there stuff and are a credit to >the >certification then I have no problem with it. It we have 8000 CCIEs and > >1000 of them can't live up to the expectations of the certification, >then it >hurts the value not only of the other 7000, but also of any >future >recipients of the certification. > >I am not bitter or angry >(thanks for jumping to conclusions) that the study >guides weren't >around, some were when I received my cert and I certainly >used them. I >don't want them to go away. I own many of the books written by >other >CCIEs and use them as a reference quite often. I am thankful they are > >available. The materials that exist have the potential to help all of >us. My >issue is simply one of "The CCIE certification should not be >devaulued" - >that is my chief concern and my reason for answering the >survey the way I >did. The only reason I posted my response to the survey >was because I was >asked to do so. I apologize if my opinions differ from >yours and you are >therefore offended. It was not my intention to offend >you. You most >certainly are entitled to your opinion and I don't expect >to change your >mind. > > >Hope this clears things up a bit, otherwise >we'll have to just agree to >disagree. > >Louie > >-Original >Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Bradley J. Wilson >Sent: >Saturday, June 02, 2001 9:13 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subj
Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
Louie- I see that you recommended this book... http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/compare/isbn/0071354573 Have you read the Cisco Press SNA (by the Sacketts), or are you saying McGraw Hill was a better read ??? Thanks Phil - Original Message - From: Louie Belt To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 2:25 PM Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > I have had numerous requests and have been unable to help everyone or answer > everyone's questions. I do not have the time to help all that ask. I'll be > the first to admit that I have "ignored a number of email message due to > time constraints. But you will also find a number of people that I have > helped and some that I continue to help in a very focused manner. > > I'm not applying for saint-hood and don't intend to, but I don't have time > to answer every individual request. > > My responses would be the same that I have seen on this site a multitude of > times: > > As for books: > > TCP/IP Volume I and Volume II are a must. > > Caslow's 2nd edition is also a must have. > > Halibi is good for theory but lacks good examples with router configs. > > McGraw Hill's Bridging, DLSW+ and Desktop Protocols is a must as well (skip > the appletalk section) > > Stay away from the CCIE all in one LAB study guide - it is a waste of time. > > > CCBootcamp still offers the best labs for preparation, Mentor labs is OK for > small practice labs on specific issues. > > Use the documentation CD to find all answers - no matter how painful it is. > Practice timing and methodology. Intermix IOS versions in you lab. And of > course practice, practice, practice - time managment is critical. > > > Louie > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Cisco Kidd > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:57 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > > > I don't want to bash you Louie but I sent you an email a couple of months > ago and asked for some opinions on what books I should purchase for the > CCIE lab( I supplied a list of the ones I thought) and if the study > methods I was employing were adequate in preparation for the lab and > didn't get a response ( I didn't ask for specifics such as IOS verions on > the lab or topics covered in your lab) I know that you are probably busy > as a CCIE, but I just want you and everyone else to know that you are not > as helpful as you advertise yourself to be. > > > > >From: "Louie Belt" >Reply-To: "Louie Belt" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] >Date: Sat, 2 Jun > 2001 23:06:15 -0400 > >Yes you are wrong (about my perspective). I have > helped several engineers >study for and pass the CCIE written as well as > the lab. My concern is in >preserving the value of the cert. As for > dog-eat-dog I'll help anyone who is >sincere and wants to learn - > providing they are willing to put in the >effort. However, I will not > "give them the answers" so that they can make >the value of my cert less. > > >Prior to so much study material being available, you had to study and > know >how to handle a wide array of issues, the specifics as to what is > on the lab >were simply unknown and therefore you had to be prepared for > anything - and >know it well. Now that the study materials have become > available, it allows >a candidate to be more focused on lab specific > issues instead of on routing >and swicthing in general. As a result a > candidate can now pass the lab >without having a decent broad knowledge > of routing and switching, they just >need to know how to prepare for the > lab. That in my opinion has devalued >the certification. > >If we have > 100,000 CCIEs all of which know there stuff and are a credit to >the > certification then I have no problem with it. It we have 8000 CCIEs and > >1000 of them can't live up to the expectations of the certification, > then it >hurts the value not only of the other 7000, but also of any > future >recipients of the certification. > >I am not bitter or angry > (thanks for jumping to conclusions) that the study >guides weren't > around, some were when I received my cert and I certainly >used them. I > don't want them to go away. I own many of the books written by >other > CCIEs and use them as a reference quite often. I am thankful they are > >available. The materials that exist have the potential to help all of > us. My >issue is simply one of "The CCIE certification should not be > devaulued" - >that is my chief concern and my reason for answering the > survey the way I >did. The only reason I posted my response to the survey > was because I was >asked to do so. I apologize if my opinions differ from > yours and you are >therefore offended. It was not my intention to offend > you. You most >certainly are entitled to your opinion and I don't expect > to change your >mind. > > >Hope this clears things up a bit, otherwise > we'll have to just agree to >d
RE: Q. About the Management of Cisco [7:6995]
I don't know if you've already seen this, but I picked up "Making the Cisco Connection: The story behond the Real Internet Superpower" by David Bunnell last year. The title sounds a little inflated now because of recent events, but it was an interesting read that seems to be exactly what you asked for. --- Dennis -Original Message- From: Samuel Ho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Q. About the Management of Cisco [7:6995] Hi all Recently I am working on my reserach paper with the topic of the management of Cisco. I hope anyone who is/was working in this company or who is experienced can give me some info on how they manage their different departments. Of course I've read some books about that, but I want to have some real experience info as my reference. By the way, I love to have an open discussion on that as well. Thank you very much. Regards, Sam Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7001&t=6995 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Undeliverable: Cisco Certification Digest V2 #1333 [7:7000]
Your message To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cisco Certification Digest V2 #1333 Sent:Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:30:32 +1000 did not reach the following recipient(s): Bruce Horkings on Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:59:27 +1000 The recipient could not be processed due to congestion in the message transfer service The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=AU;a= ;p=Crane;l=HERMES0106021659LYJBSDH3 MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:TRADELINK:HERMES [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type application/ms-tnef] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7000&t=7000 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
I have had numerous requests and have been unable to help everyone or answer everyone's questions. I do not have the time to help all that ask. I'll be the first to admit that I have "ignored a number of email message due to time constraints. But you will also find a number of people that I have helped and some that I continue to help in a very focused manner. I'm not applying for saint-hood and don't intend to, but I don't have time to answer every individual request. My responses would be the same that I have seen on this site a multitude of times: As for books: TCP/IP Volume I and Volume II are a must. Caslow's 2nd edition is also a must have. Halibi is good for theory but lacks good examples with router configs. McGraw Hill's Bridging, DLSW+ and Desktop Protocols is a must as well (skip the appletalk section) Stay away from the CCIE all in one LAB study guide - it is a waste of time. CCBootcamp still offers the best labs for preparation, Mentor labs is OK for small practice labs on specific issues. Use the documentation CD to find all answers - no matter how painful it is. Practice timing and methodology. Intermix IOS versions in you lab. And of course practice, practice, practice - time managment is critical. Louie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cisco Kidd Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] I don't want to bash you Louie but I sent you an email a couple of months ago and asked for some opinions on what books I should purchase for the CCIE lab( I supplied a list of the ones I thought) and if the study methods I was employing were adequate in preparation for the lab and didn't get a response ( I didn't ask for specifics such as IOS verions on the lab or topics covered in your lab) I know that you are probably busy as a CCIE, but I just want you and everyone else to know that you are not as helpful as you advertise yourself to be. >From: "Louie Belt" >Reply-To: "Louie Belt" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:06:15 -0400 > >Yes you are wrong (about my perspective). I have helped several engineers >study for and pass the CCIE written as well as the lab. My concern is in >preserving the value of the cert. As for dog-eat-dog I'll help anyone who is >sincere and wants to learn - providing they are willing to put in the >effort. However, I will not "give them the answers" so that they can make >the value of my cert less. > >Prior to so much study material being available, you had to study and know >how to handle a wide array of issues, the specifics as to what is on the lab >were simply unknown and therefore you had to be prepared for anything - and >know it well. Now that the study materials have become available, it allows >a candidate to be more focused on lab specific issues instead of on routing >and swicthing in general. As a result a candidate can now pass the lab >without having a decent broad knowledge of routing and switching, they just >need to know how to prepare for the lab. That in my opinion has devalued >the certification. > >If we have 100,000 CCIEs all of which know there stuff and are a credit to >the certification then I have no problem with it. It we have 8000 CCIEs and >1000 of them can't live up to the expectations of the certification, then it >hurts the value not only of the other 7000, but also of any future >recipients of the certification. > >I am not bitter or angry (thanks for jumping to conclusions) that the study >guides weren't around, some were when I received my cert and I certainly >used them. I don't want them to go away. I own many of the books written by >other CCIEs and use them as a reference quite often. I am thankful they are >available. The materials that exist have the potential to help all of us. My >issue is simply one of "The CCIE certification should not be devaulued" - >that is my chief concern and my reason for answering the survey the way I >did. The only reason I posted my response to the survey was because I was >asked to do so. I apologize if my opinions differ from yours and you are >therefore offended. It was not my intention to offend you. You most >certainly are entitled to your opinion and I don't expect to change your >mind. > > >Hope this clears things up a bit, otherwise we'll have to just agree to >disagree. > >Louie > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Bradley J. Wilson >Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 9:13 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > > >Well, again, Sir Edmund, just because the newcomers can be better-informed >before their attempts doesn't mean that the challenge needs to be altered or >is less of a challenge for the individual. > >Again, I'm not against making certs tougher to achieve. But it sounds like >the
Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
You're correct that Cisco hasn't been in a big hurry to add lab facilities. But, I'm not sure that I want additional facilities. Part of the problem with the CCIE certification process is that there are only two tests and successful candidates are (usually) paid quite well. Let's say that a candidate has to take the written 4 times to pass ($1200) and the lab 4 times to pass ($5000). For a net investment of $6200, the newly minted CCIE, even with EXTREMELY limited experience, should be able to increase his annual compensation by at least $10,000. The long-term return on investment is, frankly, astounding. Would only morons pass tests? Of course not. There will always be truly talented individuals who seek the CCIE cert. Yet, how many times would a company have to hire a CCIE who passed via persistance rather than knowledge, before the company decided CCIEs weren't very knowledgeable? I've seen this very situation happen with any number of certs, including CNE, MCSE, and CCNA. I, for one, don't wish this to happen to the CCIE. The solution to the problem is to limit the number of people allowed to take the lab. One fair way to do this is to make the qualifications more stringent and to increase the waiting period between lab attempts. My lab is coming up faster than I would like, but if I don't pass on the first attempt, I think it would be quite reasonable for Cisco to require a 6 month wait before I could attempt the lab again. Would it be frustrating, especially if I narrowly failed? You bet. But then again, it'd make it that much sweeter when I finally passed. Just my $0.02... Craig At 01:40 PM 6/3/2001 -0400, you wrote: >"By reducing the number of people who are authorized to take the lab, the >waiting list for the lab will shrink" > >I can't argue with this statement. However, as explained below, I don't >think reducing the number of people authorized to take the lab is the >solution. > >I'll say this once more, since no one has given me any feedback about this >opinion (which I've posted before): > >The waiting list for the lab is longer now for 2 reasons: >1) More people are attempting the CCIE than a year ago or before. >2) Cisco, in large part, is responsible for this backlog for the lab >because they have not created more lab exam locations to meet the rising >demand. If anything, they have somewhat created this backlog because they >reduced the number of lab testing locations in North America from 3 to 2. >The act of reducing the number of testing locations by 33% (assuming demand >were constant, which I believe it has actually risen) would explain why the >2 remaining locations are overrun with applicants. > >Given these two reasons, I'd like to hear feedback on whether or not people >agree that this explains the backlog. Furthermore, I'd like to hear >comments on my assertion that, because these 2 things are mainly responsible >for the backlog, that the CCIE written and lab do not need modification >because their difficulty (or lack of on some people's opinion) is *not* the >cause of the backlog to begin with. > >Comments are welcomed. (begged for actually =) Priscilla, Chuck, >Louie. speak up =) > >Mike W. > >PS: I think that making CCNA -> CCNP a prerequisite for even taking the >CCIE written would relieve some of the congestion in the waiting line for >the lab and create a more rounded CCIE candidate. I knew from the beginning >that going for CCIE without CCNA/CCNP was an option, but I wanted a fuller >understanding of networking, so I chose to do CCNA/CCDA/CCNP/CCDP before >even attempting CCIE lab, so I could be a CCIE worthy the title. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6998&t=6735 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to configure 1601 to load balance 2 Internet circuits [7:6996]
And turn off fast switching if you want per packet load balancing: int s0 no ip route-cache If you do not need process switching then leave the interface it its default switching mode.. I would think you would want to load balance per packet so it appears to be equally slow/fast as compared to "this connection rocks" and "why does this connection suck so bad?" Assuming the traffic is IP another modifications you can look at that would be pretty easy to setup: Setting ip policy on the BRI/serial interfaces with the T1 interface transporting packets matching a route-map of say 400 bytes to 1500 bytes and those smaller going across the BRI... It would look something like this: int bri0 ip address a.a.a.a x.x.x.x int s0 ip address b.b.b.b x.x.x.x int eth0 ip addresss c.c.c.c x.x.x.x ip route-cache policy ip policy route-map inet route-map inet permit 10 match length 400 1500 set ip next-hop route-map inet permit 20 ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 HTH Kelly - Original Message - From: "Mike Nygard" To: Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 4:59 PM Subject: Re: How to configure 1601 to load balance 2 Internet circuits [7:6911] > Hello Justin, > > The easiest way to resolve this would be to use multiple default routes from > global configuration: > > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 > > The router will load balance between the 2 routes. > > Thank you, > Mike Nygard > > > ""Justin Lofton"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I have a customer that has a 128k connection to the Internet and they are > > bringing in a T1 to the Internet but they want to load balance on both > > circuits for a week to be sure the new circuit is working properly. What > is > > the simpliest way to configure this scenario? Can I set multiple last > > resort gateways or what? Please help! > > > > Thanks everyone! > > > > Justin Lofton > > Account Executive/CCNA > > Tredent Data Systems > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > V: (818) 222-3770 > > F: (818) 222-3778 > > http://www.tredent.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6996&t=6996 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: reverse telnet [7:6987]
Depends how far you want to extend it. RS-232 will only go about 50 feet. To do that you can just use a straight thru cat-5. To extend further we use a blackbox fiber modem. ME600A-FST. RS-232 on one end and ST on the other. I'm not sure the exact specs but we have used them to extend 300 + yards. --Rich -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of anthony moore Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: reverse telnet [7:6987] What kind of cable and adapter do I need to extend the octal cable that I am using for reverse telnet? I am not sure what the name of the cable is. Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6997&t=6987 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Q. About the Management of Cisco [7:6995]
Hi all Recently I am working on my reserach paper with the topic of the management of Cisco. I hope anyone who is/was working in this company or who is experienced can give me some info on how they manage their different departments. Of course I've read some books about that, but I want to have some real experience info as my reference. By the way, I love to have an open discussion on that as well. Thank you very much. Regards, Sam Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6995&t=6995 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
"By reducing the number of people who are authorized to take the lab, the waiting list for the lab will shrink" I can't argue with this statement. However, as explained below, I don't think reducing the number of people authorized to take the lab is the solution. I'll say this once more, since no one has given me any feedback about this opinion (which I've posted before): The waiting list for the lab is longer now for 2 reasons: 1) More people are attempting the CCIE than a year ago or before. 2) Cisco, in large part, is responsible for this backlog for the lab because they have not created more lab exam locations to meet the rising demand. If anything, they have somewhat created this backlog because they reduced the number of lab testing locations in North America from 3 to 2. The act of reducing the number of testing locations by 33% (assuming demand were constant, which I believe it has actually risen) would explain why the 2 remaining locations are overrun with applicants. Given these two reasons, I'd like to hear feedback on whether or not people agree that this explains the backlog. Furthermore, I'd like to hear comments on my assertion that, because these 2 things are mainly responsible for the backlog, that the CCIE written and lab do not need modification because their difficulty (or lack of on some people's opinion) is *not* the cause of the backlog to begin with. Comments are welcomed. (begged for actually =) Priscilla, Chuck, Louie. speak up =) Mike W. PS: I think that making CCNA -> CCNP a prerequisite for even taking the CCIE written would relieve some of the congestion in the waiting line for the lab and create a more rounded CCIE candidate. I knew from the beginning that going for CCIE without CCNA/CCNP was an option, but I wanted a fuller understanding of networking, so I chose to do CCNA/CCDA/CCNP/CCDP before even attempting CCIE lab, so I could be a CCIE worthy the title. "Craig Columbus" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Kevin brings up a good point. By reducing the number of people who are > authorized to take the lab, the waiting list for the lab will shrink. I > think that it's time that Cisco bring the CCIE into the certification track > with the other certs. Personally, I found the CCIE written to be rather > easy compared to the CID exam. > I don't think I'd let the CCNP/CCDP be the prerequisite however. I think > I'd rather keep the CCIE written qualifier as a separate, yet progressively > more difficult exam, perhaps by keeping the current content, but adding > more questions relevant to today's large scale networks. The new order of > certification might be CCNA, CCDA, CCNP, CCDP, CCIE Written, each > certification being a prerequisite for the next. > I don't necessarily think that a change to the CCIE lab is in order, mainly > since I've heard that while the number of people taking (or waiting to > take) the lab has increased, the passing rate has pretty much stayed the > same. > > Craig > At 04:35 PM 6/2/2001 -0400, you wrote: > >"This has somewhat lessened the difficulty of the process (as witnessed by > >the > >backlog of people taking the lab after breezing through the written)." > > > >When the "junior certs" were introduced, it was pondered whether they should > >be a pre-requisite to the CCIE written or as I have read before - make the > >CCNP/CCDP the pre-requisite for the lab. > > > >On a FAQ at one time, Cisco said that "eventually" the CCIE would become > >part of the career certification track which was to say that you would need > >to go through the junior certs before attempting the CCIE. > > > >With the onslaught of new study material, bootcamps, virtual racks et al, I > >think it is time that the CCIE written be retired and the CCNP/CCDP be the > >CCIE lab authorization. > > > >Or, because the CCIE written still has stuff that is not talked about much > >any more (if at all) in the current R/S curriculum, then a smaller CCIE > >written to cover those topics but integrate it into the present career > >track. CCNA - CCNP/CCDP - CCIE Written - CCIE lab. > > > >This way, we could get rid of the idea of passing one exam and then clogging > >the calendar for the CCIE lab. If you have to get from 4 - 7 exams before > >the lab, that would perhaps slow things down and maybe (just maybe) increase > >the success rate at the lab. > > > >Hopefully this would stave off any loss of respect for the cert and perhaps > >even increase it. > > > > > >Kevin Wigle > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Louie Belt" > >To: > >Sent: Saturday, 02 June, 2001 09:33 > >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > > > > > > > Any CCIE or CCIE candidate worth his salt would want the lab to be > >tougher. > > > A number of study aids are now available that were not in the past. This > > > has somewhat lessened the difficulty of the process (as witnessed by the > > > backlog of people taking the lab after b
Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
Interesting, you've modified the R/S track into one line instead of an operation track and a design track. I kinda like it, get the CCDA before the CCNP and then get the CCDP before attempting CCIE. I think that this would create much more "rounded" professionals, having elements of both design and support in a cert. I'm probably a bit biased though because that's exactly the order I took :-) (except the CCIE part) Kevin Wigle - Original Message - From: "Craig Columbus" To: "Kevin Wigle" Cc: Sent: Sunday, 03 June, 2001 12:18 Subject: Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > Kevin brings up a good point. By reducing the number of people who are > authorized to take the lab, the waiting list for the lab will shrink. I > think that it's time that Cisco bring the CCIE into the certification track > with the other certs. Personally, I found the CCIE written to be rather > easy compared to the CID exam. > I don't think I'd let the CCNP/CCDP be the prerequisite however. I think > I'd rather keep the CCIE written qualifier as a separate, yet progressively > more difficult exam, perhaps by keeping the current content, but adding > more questions relevant to today's large scale networks. The new order of > certification might be CCNA, CCDA, CCNP, CCDP, CCIE Written, each > certification being a prerequisite for the next. > I don't necessarily think that a change to the CCIE lab is in order, mainly > since I've heard that while the number of people taking (or waiting to > take) the lab has increased, the passing rate has pretty much stayed the same. > > Craig > At 04:35 PM 6/2/2001 -0400, you wrote: > >"This has somewhat lessened the difficulty of the process (as witnessed by > >the > >backlog of people taking the lab after breezing through the written)." > > > >When the "junior certs" were introduced, it was pondered whether they should > >be a pre-requisite to the CCIE written or as I have read before - make the > >CCNP/CCDP the pre-requisite for the lab. > > > >On a FAQ at one time, Cisco said that "eventually" the CCIE would become > >part of the career certification track which was to say that you would need > >to go through the junior certs before attempting the CCIE. > > > >With the onslaught of new study material, bootcamps, virtual racks et al, I > >think it is time that the CCIE written be retired and the CCNP/CCDP be the > >CCIE lab authorization. > > > >Or, because the CCIE written still has stuff that is not talked about much > >any more (if at all) in the current R/S curriculum, then a smaller CCIE > >written to cover those topics but integrate it into the present career > >track. CCNA - CCNP/CCDP - CCIE Written - CCIE lab. > > > >This way, we could get rid of the idea of passing one exam and then clogging > >the calendar for the CCIE lab. If you have to get from 4 - 7 exams before > >the lab, that would perhaps slow things down and maybe (just maybe) increase > >the success rate at the lab. > > > >Hopefully this would stave off any loss of respect for the cert and perhaps > >even increase it. > > > > > >Kevin Wigle > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Louie Belt" > >To: > >Sent: Saturday, 02 June, 2001 09:33 > >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > > > > > > > Any CCIE or CCIE candidate worth his salt would want the lab to be > >tougher. > > > A number of study aids are now available that were not in the past. This > > > has somewhat lessened the difficulty of the process (as witnessed by the > > > backlog of people taking the lab after breezing through the written). > > > Making it tougher is just a method of counterbalancing all of the > >increased > > > study aids and maintaining the value of the CCIE cert. > > > > > > If you truly want to obtain your CCIE then you should want it to be as > > > difficult as possible, otherwise where is the value in the cert? If you > >are > > > not up to the challenge, then don't make the attempt. > > > > > > As for who should evaluate the CCIE program - most (not all)employers > > > couldn't begin to answer the questions about what is needed from a CCIE. > > > The biggest employer of CCIE's is Cisco (by far) so they should already > >have > > > an idea of what is needed. Cisco has been respectful enough of the CCIE > > > population to also ask for their input and most have given it willingly. > > > > > > My main interested is in preserving the value of the CCIE cert. I am > > > currently studying for my 2nd CCIE cert and still hope they make it > >tougher > > > (before I complete it). I also hope they make the recertification tests > > > tougher as well. > > > > > > I'm up to the challenge - are you? > > > > > > > > > Louie Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6993&t=6735 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECT
RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
I don't want to bash you Louie but I sent you an email a couple of months ago and asked for some opinions on what books I should purchase for the CCIE lab( I supplied a list of the ones I thought) and if the study methods I was employing were adequate in preparation for the lab and didn't get a response ( I didn't ask for specifics such as IOS verions on the lab or topics covered in your lab) I know that you are probably busy as a CCIE, but I just want you and everyone else to know that you are not as helpful as you advertise yourself to be. >From: "Louie Belt" >Reply-To: "Louie Belt" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] >Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:06:15 -0400 > >Yes you are wrong (about my perspective). I have helped several engineers >study for and pass the CCIE written as well as the lab. My concern is in >preserving the value of the cert. As for dog-eat-dog I'll help anyone who is >sincere and wants to learn - providing they are willing to put in the >effort. However, I will not "give them the answers" so that they can make >the value of my cert less. > >Prior to so much study material being available, you had to study and know >how to handle a wide array of issues, the specifics as to what is on the lab >were simply unknown and therefore you had to be prepared for anything - and >know it well. Now that the study materials have become available, it allows >a candidate to be more focused on lab specific issues instead of on routing >and swicthing in general. As a result a candidate can now pass the lab >without having a decent broad knowledge of routing and switching, they just >need to know how to prepare for the lab. That in my opinion has devalued >the certification. > >If we have 100,000 CCIEs all of which know there stuff and are a credit to >the certification then I have no problem with it. It we have 8000 CCIEs and >1000 of them can't live up to the expectations of the certification, then it >hurts the value not only of the other 7000, but also of any future >recipients of the certification. > >I am not bitter or angry (thanks for jumping to conclusions) that the study >guides weren't around, some were when I received my cert and I certainly >used them. I don't want them to go away. I own many of the books written by >other CCIEs and use them as a reference quite often. I am thankful they are >available. The materials that exist have the potential to help all of us. My >issue is simply one of "The CCIE certification should not be devaulued" - >that is my chief concern and my reason for answering the survey the way I >did. The only reason I posted my response to the survey was because I was >asked to do so. I apologize if my opinions differ from yours and you are >therefore offended. It was not my intention to offend you. You most >certainly are entitled to your opinion and I don't expect to change your >mind. > > >Hope this clears things up a bit, otherwise we'll have to just agree to >disagree. > >Louie > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Bradley J. Wilson >Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 9:13 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > > >Well, again, Sir Edmund, just because the newcomers can be better-informed >before their attempts doesn't mean that the challenge needs to be altered or >is less of a challenge for the individual. > >Again, I'm not against making certs tougher to achieve. But it sounds like >there's a touch of bitterness that these study guides weren't around way >back when...well, that's just the way life is. Making the CCIE "tougher" >and still calling it the "CCIE" is like asking runners to run a 400m race, >but then making them run 500m without telling them. ;-) Besides, the >argument about the study materials is subjective. Was CCO around when you >took the CCIE? Were other engineers around who were studying for it? Were >used routers around for you to purchase, and perhaps set up for others to >telnet into? I'm sure there were - if you (and/or others) didn't make use >of them, then that's water under the source-route bridge. > >If you want someone to be angry at, be angry at the people who took the >CCIE, passed or not, and then went out and wrote books on how to study for >the CCIE. But I personally don't think these people are doing a disservice >to the CCIE, nor are they devaluing it - and with a consistent 80% failure >rate, they're certainly not making it "less challenging." The study guides, >etc. make it more of a group effort, and there's nothing wrong with that - >not against the rules, not against the NDA, and our society wins because >we're able to learn from (and teach to) one another, thereby filling the >desperate need we have today for knowledgeable network engineers. Don't >punish those of us who have not yet earned our CCIE status for using the >resources which are available to us - or for having the foresight to cre
Re: BCRAN exam [7:6988]
It is a pain! I don't think that you need to know much about the commands as much as you need to know about those stupid profiles. When are you planning on taking it? If I take if before you I will let you know how it goes if you give me your e-mail Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6991&t=6988 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
Kevin brings up a good point. By reducing the number of people who are authorized to take the lab, the waiting list for the lab will shrink. I think that it's time that Cisco bring the CCIE into the certification track with the other certs. Personally, I found the CCIE written to be rather easy compared to the CID exam. I don't think I'd let the CCNP/CCDP be the prerequisite however. I think I'd rather keep the CCIE written qualifier as a separate, yet progressively more difficult exam, perhaps by keeping the current content, but adding more questions relevant to today's large scale networks. The new order of certification might be CCNA, CCDA, CCNP, CCDP, CCIE Written, each certification being a prerequisite for the next. I don't necessarily think that a change to the CCIE lab is in order, mainly since I've heard that while the number of people taking (or waiting to take) the lab has increased, the passing rate has pretty much stayed the same. Craig At 04:35 PM 6/2/2001 -0400, you wrote: >"This has somewhat lessened the difficulty of the process (as witnessed by >the >backlog of people taking the lab after breezing through the written)." > >When the "junior certs" were introduced, it was pondered whether they should >be a pre-requisite to the CCIE written or as I have read before - make the >CCNP/CCDP the pre-requisite for the lab. > >On a FAQ at one time, Cisco said that "eventually" the CCIE would become >part of the career certification track which was to say that you would need >to go through the junior certs before attempting the CCIE. > >With the onslaught of new study material, bootcamps, virtual racks et al, I >think it is time that the CCIE written be retired and the CCNP/CCDP be the >CCIE lab authorization. > >Or, because the CCIE written still has stuff that is not talked about much >any more (if at all) in the current R/S curriculum, then a smaller CCIE >written to cover those topics but integrate it into the present career >track. CCNA - CCNP/CCDP - CCIE Written - CCIE lab. > >This way, we could get rid of the idea of passing one exam and then clogging >the calendar for the CCIE lab. If you have to get from 4 - 7 exams before >the lab, that would perhaps slow things down and maybe (just maybe) increase >the success rate at the lab. > >Hopefully this would stave off any loss of respect for the cert and perhaps >even increase it. > > >Kevin Wigle > > >- Original Message - >From: "Louie Belt" >To: >Sent: Saturday, 02 June, 2001 09:33 >Subject: RE: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > > > > Any CCIE or CCIE candidate worth his salt would want the lab to be >tougher. > > A number of study aids are now available that were not in the past. This > > has somewhat lessened the difficulty of the process (as witnessed by the > > backlog of people taking the lab after breezing through the written). > > Making it tougher is just a method of counterbalancing all of the >increased > > study aids and maintaining the value of the CCIE cert. > > > > If you truly want to obtain your CCIE then you should want it to be as > > difficult as possible, otherwise where is the value in the cert? If you >are > > not up to the challenge, then don't make the attempt. > > > > As for who should evaluate the CCIE program - most (not all)employers > > couldn't begin to answer the questions about what is needed from a CCIE. > > The biggest employer of CCIE's is Cisco (by far) so they should already >have > > an idea of what is needed. Cisco has been respectful enough of the CCIE > > population to also ask for their input and most have given it willingly. > > > > My main interested is in preserving the value of the CCIE cert. I am > > currently studying for my 2nd CCIE cert and still hope they make it >tougher > > (before I complete it). I also hope they make the recertification tests > > tougher as well. > > > > I'm up to the challenge - are you? > > > > > > Louie Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6990&t=6735 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BCRAN exam [7:6988]
I'm also preparing for BCRAN... How much is the Cisco 700 series on the exam? Hopefully not much, because it's a pain =) "anthony moore" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I am taking the BCRAN in a couple of days. Does anyone have any advice? > > Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6989&t=6988 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reverse telnet [7:6987]
What kind of cable and adapter do I need to extend the octal cable that I am using for reverse telnet? I am not sure what the name of the cable is. Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6987&t=6987 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Voice on lab [7:6979]
Voice in the lab is VoIP across an ATM cloud. At 08:46 AM 06/03/2001 -0400, sparkest pig wrote: >I know that VoIP is on the lab. but how about VoFR or VoATM? >are they included in the VoIP? (the CCIE outline doesnot say that) >_ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. x$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$x$:0`0:$xx Darren S. Crawford Network Systems Consultant Lucent Technologies - Sacramento email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] page via email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pager: 800-467-1467 x$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$x$:0`0:$xx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6986&t=6979 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BCRAN exam [7:6988]
I am taking the BCRAN in a couple of days. Does anyone have any advice? Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6988&t=6988 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: another OT: why you UNIX guys look down on we NT guys? [7:6985]
Yes, please.. let's end this I understand news servers, Sir. I've configured and installed many of them. They're not complex. I understand them enough to know that if you weren't scared to, you could take 10 seconds in your news reader to enter your REAL name and e-mail address. I also understand that you're not brave enough to because all you've given is nothing but fake names, e-mail addresses, and credentials the whole time. Please don't waste anymore bandwidth until you're ready to stop hiding behind a shield of anonymity. "Me" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > You must be a GREAT GURU who couldn't even even figure out how the > groupstudy news server works and how you have been getting your mails.. ha > ha ha > Could someone tell this poor guy how the news server for groupstudy have > been configured so that he can understand I think it's too complicated > !!! In any case, don't bother emailing me because talking to you would be a > absolute waste of time if you cannot understand a simple news-server, how > can I even discuss anything technical with you ha ha ha. > > Let's end this... > > > ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > You don't even deserve a rebuttal, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". You won't > even > > say who you are.. 50,000 workstations my ass while you're making > up > > fake credentials, why not just say it was 100,000 workstations or 1 > million. > > > > "Me" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Guess I have not read any CCNA books recently > > > > > > I won't even bother to flame you for the "joke??" . When you find me a > > unix > > > admin who can plan the deployment of 50,000 workstation and successfully > > > roll it out, we can discuss again > > > > > > ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > In case you haven't noticed, most CCNA books point out the fact that > the > > > IOS > > > > uses a "Unix-ish" shell, with command line completion, etc. just like > > > Unix. > > > > > > > > Some of the low end equipment, like the 700 series and the 1900s allow > > you > > > > to use a web interface, but virtually everything else is command > > line. > > > > > > > > Can you provide facts showing that the IOS *isn't* Unix-ish? Perhaps > > > Cisco > > > > is working on a GUI, (don't flame me for this ... it's a joke), > they're > > > > working on a GUI so all the NT admins can have a chance at becoming > > Cisco > > > > gurus =) > > > > > > > > Mike W. (former NT admin) > > > > > > > > "Jason" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Oh, now the IOS is Unixish ?? Phew, so by that token, all Unix > experts > > > > would > > > > > be CCIE... so I guess the number would include all the so call > > > Unix/Linux > > > > > "experts" > > > > > I don't remember mentioning that the ATM runs NT, most of them > > actually > > > > run > > > > > OS2. The extra $$ you save from using open?? source OS would be > waste > > on > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > In case you have not notice, Cisco is working on a GUI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Kelly Hair"" wrote in message > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > > "Jason" - > > > > > > > > > > > > By your logic, Windows NT 3.1 is all you need for your Enterprise > to > > > > > > succeed. Good luck in that endevour! > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to your other point, yes, I would trust my ATM server > to > > > > > Linux. > > > > > > The blue screen is pretty but I would prefer to have money > instead. > > > > Oh.. > > > > > > not to mention the extra money I would have from using a an open > > > source > > > > OS > > > > > > rather than an M$ one... > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps Cisco should throw out the Unixish IOS and replace it with > a > > > GUI > > > > > so > > > > > > everyone could write configs for routers. Sounds like a grand > > idea... > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Kelly > > > > > > > > > > > > > What was your point ? That Multics sucks , and by the same > token, > > > > > > > therefore Unix sucks and NT/W2K rules !!! At least, NT/W2K was > > based > > > > on > > > > > > > a working operating system. Anyone of you notice that Unix is > all > > > > about > > > > > > > ego ? If Unix is finished in 1 month, why are there still people > > > > > > > working on it ? On the other hand, if Unix is perfect, why the > > hell > > > > are > > > > > > > people working on it ? If Unix promotes innovation, why is > nobody > > > > using > > > > > > > it ? Would you trust you ATM machine to Linux ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Jim Dixon"" wrote in message > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > > >> THE PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE B > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> ABSTRACT > > > > >
Re: VoIP QoS [7:6586]
I thought 768Kbps was the minimum you needed NOT to use LFI... at 768Kbps, it takes ~15ms for a 1500byte frame to be put on the line. So even if a couple 1500-byte ethernet frames came between your voice frames, it would wouldn't be too bad... but depending on the queuing method, even at 768Kbps, the regular ethernet traffic could indeed cause a problem... you could use a priority queue to make sure that all the voice traffic *always* goes through before any of the other traffic, but from what I understand the LLQ is much better for these purposes. Mike W. "Brian" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > What codec are you using? If the speed of the link is T1 or less I would > definitly do LFI. Otherwise large packets (1500 bytes) could be starving > the voice from the minimum latency that it needs. > > Brian > > > On Thu, 31 May 2001, Amit Gupta wrote: > > > Hi Everybody, > > > > I have configured the following parameters on the > > serial interface for VoIP.The quality of the calls is > > not very good during working hours you can feel some > > delay/small interruptions while using it. > > > > interface serial 0 > > ip tcp header-compression iphc-format > > no ip mroute-cache > > no fair-queue > > ip rtp header-compression iphc-format > > ip rtp priority 16384 16383 64 > > > > Could anybody suggest any other alternative to improve > > the quality. > > Will removing the compression help ? > > Do I need to have something like Link Fragmentation > > and Interleaving configured. > > > > Thanks > > > > Amit > > > > > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > I'm buying / selling used CISCO gear!! > email me for a quote > > Brian Feeny,CCDP,CCNP+VAS 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=6984&t=6586 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Redundancy design question [7:6646]
Well, worse case scenario, use 56K modem as backup point being, there are ways to provide backup WAN connectivity for not alot of money. HSRP could be used (as mentioned before), or the modem/ISDN could be designated as a backup interface. A bit easier to configure than HSRP. Mike W. "Brian" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ISDN is not so cheap in cali unless you can get Centrex.. > > Brian "Sonic" Whalen > Success = Preparation + Opportunity > > > On Thu, 31 May 2001, Michael L. Williams wrote: > > > Well, having more than one router connected to the same WAN connection > still > > leaves a single point of failure. Where I work, we have hundreds of > remotes > > sites, each of which has 2 routers connected together to the remote LAN > > using HSRP. One router has a frame relay connection, and the other has an > > ISDN dial-back up interface to the same WAN destination (Central Site). > > This way if the primary circuit goes down, the HSRP priority gets reduced > > (even on a subinterface level) until the connection is completely down, > thus > > router 2 then invokes the ISDN dials. ISDN is cheap, so this sounds > like > > a good method to me for providing redundance without having to mess with > > trying to connect 2 routers to a single WAN connection.. > > > > My 2 cents > > > > Mike W. > > > > "Jon" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I've been reading about designing physical redundancy into networks, by > > > having hot standby devices and using HSRP between them. As an example, > if > > > a site has a single router and a single core switch, these are points of > > > risk. By adding a second core switch and a second router, any hardware > > > failure should be overcome by the standby device taking over. If all the > > > servers and wiring closet switches are multi-homed to both core switches, > > > users shouldn't notice that a fault has occured. (I assume that the loss > > > of a wiring closet switch is acceptable -- perhaps local spares are > > > sufficient). > > > > > > However, if I only have one WAN circuit coming into the facility, it can > > > only be connected to one router at a time, right? So, if the active > > > router fails, how does the WAN connectivity fail over, short of an > > > operator moving the cable to the second router? I'm not trying to > address > > > WAN circuit redundancy or multi-homing, that's a different worm-can to > > > open. > > > > > > Is there some way to have both routers connected to the same WAN circuit? > > > Something along the lines of a WYE-cable that connects both routers to > the > > > demarc connection? Or is this something that the circuit provider would > > > address with their equipement (for a fee, I'm sure)? > > > > > > If this has been hashed over in the past, I couldn't find it in the > > > archives. So, if we've covered this before, could someone share the key > > > search words to locate the discussion? > > > > > > -jon- > > > > > > __ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > > > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6983&t=6646 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Need a helper to answer four questions [7:6974]
hmm, I didn't know pvc had two modes. I was under the impression that was the only mode as it is a permanently established virtual circuit. So possibly the two modes for a PVC are simply...it's existence or lack of Frame Rely: I believe that frame relay was originally conceived as a protocol for use over isdn interfaces and then somewhere along the line became an industry standard for wan data transfer and was meant to be a replacement for x.25. So, actually, it is the name of a protocol for wan technology and also, it is a protocol type. As far as fully meshed vs partially mashed, I believe that when using frame relay these are your two topology choices. A fully meshed network means that there is a PVC to every device on a multipoint wan. On this type of network, any update is seen by every device and this type can also be thought of as 'one data link.' And a partially meshed network is just a star topology. So, I would think the answer is fully meshed uses more PVC's since there are more established and permanent connections. Someone else can probably help you out in more detail. I am a book learner and do not have actual hands on experience in this. I am not sure about your other question and would hate to misdirect you. Jennifer Cribbs Have a great day! Jenn Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6982&t=6974 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with home network [7:6922]
Paul, If the ethernet driver was setting the card up for 100Mbps, and you were using a 10Mbps Hub, then you'd likely get no connectivity at all, rather than partial connectivity with a high percentage of packet loss. I'd be inclined to look into the duplex settings, as Daniel mentioned. A hub, even a so-called "dual-speed" hub, doesn't have the capability of providing for full duplex operation. When you cable the two machine together directly, they can communicate in full-duplex, which is most likely the reason the problem goes away when not using the hub. Manually configure both the Linux box, and the PC, for half-duplex operation, and your problem should go away. Alan - Original Message - From: "Paul Borghese" To: Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 9:55 PM Subject: RE: Problem with home network [7:6922] > Yea, I have a theory. It has to do with the Linux box, defaulting to > 100MB. Let's suppose the Linux box and PC are both running at 100 MB/sec > but the hub is only 10 MB/sec. Maybe the timing is such that it will not > work past one hop. > > When I recompiled the kernel, maybe the new kernel release changed how the > modules works on the Ethernet card, causing it to not detect 10 MB/sec > connections and to default to 100 MB/sec. > > I will do a diff on the code. > > > Who knows? > > Paul > > Daniel Cotts wrote: > > > > Since you touched the Linux box it would be the first suspect. > > Can you verify that there was no configuration change? - even > > by accident? > > If there was a change, can you roll it back to original? > > Are there other computers or printers connected to the hub? > > Is the hub single speed or dual speed? (10/100) > > (Thinking about speed/duplex mismatches.) > > How does the Linux box configure the default route? Does it > > point to its own > > E0 interface or to the remote GW? (Thinking about filling its > > ARP cache) > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Paul Borghese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 7:42 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Problem with home network [7:6922] > > > > > > > > > I have a cable modem connected to a linux box that is > > > performing NAT from my > > > invalid home network of 172.16.1.0/24 to my valid IP address > > > 209.160.20.67. > > > The 172.16.1.0 network is going into a small inexpensive hub. > > > This setup > > > has worked for about a year. > > > > > > A few days ago, I needed to do some things on the linux box. > > > When I hooked > > > everything back up my internet access was horrid. Found the > > > following: > > > > > > If I ping from 172.16.1.98 (my PC) to the following addresses: > > > > > > 172.16.1.1 (PC's Default GW, E1 interface on Linux box) > > > 0% Packet Loss > > > 209.160.20.67 (E0 Linux IP address and address PC is being > > > NATed to) 0% > > > Packet loss > > > 209.160.20.1 (GW of Linux Box) > > > 70% Packet Loss > > > > > > If I ping from the Linux box I see no packet loss to > > 172.16.1.98 or > > > 209.160.20.1. So I can now deduce the connection between the > > > Linux box and > > > the default GW is clean. > > > > > > But something is occuring with the NAT translations that > > > causes 70% packet > > > loss through the box. > > > > > > > > > Ok, so here is the puzzling thing. If I remove the hub and > > > use a crossover > > > cable between the PC and Linux box the address which is > > problamatic > > > 209.168.20.1 receives no packet loss when pinging from the PC > > > - hence fixing > > > the problem. > > > > > > So in other words, removing the hub on the 172.16.1.0 network > > > fixes the > > > connection at 209.168.20.1 ?!? > > > > > > Any ideas? > > > > > > > > > Paul Borghese > > > Report misconduct > > > and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6981&t=6922 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ethernet jam signal ? [7:5796]
When I wrote the decoder for Chevin Software we attempted to be as "networkingly" honest as possible as to what we saw on the line. I, as a result had endless traces sent to me from clients who claimed that our software was buggy when we depicted the jam code 0xAA/0x55 in all its glory when compared to A.N. OTHER analysers that did'nt capture this at all and was therefore "bug free". I think that due to these types of support calls most analyser developers don't show the truth of the matter. Regards, Phil. - Original Message - From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" To: Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 11:05 PM Subject: Re: ethernet jam signal ? [7:5796] > At 10:07 AM 6/2/01, E Joseph wrote: > >Priscilla, > > What would a the resulting jam look like on a > >sniffer trace?? > > If the jam signal is all ones, it would look like 0xFFs on a Sniffer. The > jam doesn't have to be all ones, though. On old bus coax networks, it was > actually rare to see the jam because by the time the jam happened the > clocking was so messed up that the Sniffer had already stopped capturing > and just reported a runt, CRC error, collision. > > On a network with repeaters (hubs), when the repeater detects a collision > it sends a 96-bit jam composed of alternating ones and zeros, which would > look like 0xAAs or 0x55s. That's easier to see. > > A lot of Sniffers don't capture bad frames or runts, so you wouldn't see > any of these jams in those cases. > > Someone else may have some additional information. It's always been a > question of mine also whether you can really see jams or not. > > Of course in networks where full-duplex switch ports have replaced hub > ports, this is no longer relevant. > > Please send messages to the group, not to me. Thanks, > > Priscilla > > > > > Thank You, > > Ed > > > > > > > >--- Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > > > When a transmitter detects a collision, the > > > transmitter continues to send > > > the preamble, (if the preamble has not completed), > > > and also sends 32 > > > additional bits, which are called a jam signal. The > > > jam signal extends the > > > duration of the collision event to ensure that all > > > stations hear the > > > collision. The contents of the jam can be any > > > pattern that is not > > > intentionally designed to be the 32-bit CRC value > > > corresponding to the > > > (partial) frame already transmitted. Most > > > implementations send all ones. > > > > > > Completely sending the preamble and transmitting a > > > jam signal guarantees > > > that a signal stays on the media long enough for all > > > transmitting stations > > > involved in the collision to recognize the collision > > > and react accordingly. > > > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > > > > >On Thu, 24 May 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > What is an "ethernet a jam signal" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > > http://www.priscilla.com > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >__ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > >a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6980&t=5796 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice on lab [7:6979]
I know that VoIP is on the lab. but how about VoFR or VoATM? are they included in the VoIP? (the CCIE outline doesnot say that) _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6979&t=6979 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exact debug- call user data(4): 0XC0000000(unknown) [7:6975]
Hi the exact debug is Serial0/0 :x25 I P1 Call Request 9150 8 lci 16 From(6): 010301 to (6) 010303 Facilities:(0) call user data (4):0XC000(unknown) Serial0/2:x25 O P3 call request (15) 8 lci 1 From(6): 010301 to (6) 010303 Facilities:(0) call user data (4):0XC000(unknown) Serial0/2 :X25 I P3 clear request (5) 8 lci 1 cause 0 debug 245 Serial0/0 :X25 I P7 clear request (5) 8 lci 16 cause 0 debug 245 Serial0/2 :X25 I P3 clear confirmation(3) 8 lci 1 Serial0/0:X25 I P7 clear confirmation(3) 8 lci 16 Thanx Regards Arun Sharma ""Arun"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi > i have x25 router i am using it to configure x25 route between the 2 seril > interfaces but when i do the debug x25 events on the router as i am not able > to communicate between the 2 serial ports i get something like this ...pls > help > > from(6): 010301 to (6) 010303 > Facilities:(0) > call user data (4):0XC000(unknown) > what does this mean i kow something is wrong but where ...pls tell > > thanx > Regards > Arun Sharma Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6978&t=6975 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: another OT: why you UNIX guys look down on we NT guys? [7:6977]
We never knew , cause it is the only instance I ever know of that a trainee has been "kicked" out of class for not meeting pre-requisite... ""Brian"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > training for a mouse, how does an admin like that make it through the day? > > Brian "Sonic" Whalen > Success = Preparation + Opportunity > > > On Thu, 31 May 2001, Jason wrote: > > > This is becoming one of those why do NT guys look down on Unix guys > > thing. I once seen a Unix admin attend a NT course and was rejected by > > the trainer on the first day because he doesn't know how to use a mouse, > and > > the trainer insisted that he is not going to train someone how to use the > > mouse on a Admin course. > > > > > > ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > There really was an NB which stood for New B. It's wasn't a joke. ;-) > > > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > At 07:11 PM 5/31/01, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > >Basic Computer Programming Language, which became B, which became C. > > > > > > > > > > > > >B and New B. > > > > > > > > > >Priscilla > > > > > > > > > >At 06:39 PM 5/31/01, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > > >> >Want to make any UNIX-head apoplex? Remind them that DOS is UNIX > > > >subset. > > > > >>>The multi-tasking & multi-threaded functions were dropped because > > there > > > > >>>weren't enough bits in the registers for the Intel 8088. These were > > > added > > > > >>>back in when the hardware for PC's was available. However, they did > > add > > > > >>>better mnemonics for the UNIX commands so 'ls' became 'dir'. 'Easy' > > > > >>>translates to 'stupid' somehow. But even so it's UNIX! DOS is UNIX! > > > > >>>tee-hee. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>DOS clowns. > > > > >>>UNIX dweebs. > > > > >>>NT geeks. > > > > >>>Cisco nerds. > > > > >>>Where's Diane Arbus when we need her? > > > > >>> > > > > >>>- susan > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>Get back to the origins of the name UNIX. Pronounced aloud, is there > > > > >>an English word that comes to mind? > > > > >> > > > > >>The ancestor of UNIX is MULTICS. UNIX is castrated MULTICS. > > > > >> > > > > >>Extra credit for the two predecessors of C. (No, the first one isn't > > A). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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=6977&t=6977 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: another OT: why you UNIX guys look down on we NT guys? [7:6976]
You must be a GREAT GURU who couldn't even even figure out how the groupstudy news server works and how you have been getting your mails.. ha ha ha Could someone tell this poor guy how the news server for groupstudy have been configured so that he can understand I think it's too complicated !!! In any case, don't bother emailing me because talking to you would be a absolute waste of time if you cannot understand a simple news-server, how can I even discuss anything technical with you ha ha ha. Let's end this... ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > You don't even deserve a rebuttal, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". You won't even > say who you are.. 50,000 workstations my ass while you're making up > fake credentials, why not just say it was 100,000 workstations or 1 million. > > "Me" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Guess I have not read any CCNA books recently > > > > I won't even bother to flame you for the "joke??" . When you find me a > unix > > admin who can plan the deployment of 50,000 workstation and successfully > > roll it out, we can discuss again > > > > ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > In case you haven't noticed, most CCNA books point out the fact that the > > IOS > > > uses a "Unix-ish" shell, with command line completion, etc. just like > > Unix. > > > > > > Some of the low end equipment, like the 700 series and the 1900s allow > you > > > to use a web interface, but virtually everything else is command > line. > > > > > > Can you provide facts showing that the IOS *isn't* Unix-ish? Perhaps > > Cisco > > > is working on a GUI, (don't flame me for this ... it's a joke), they're > > > working on a GUI so all the NT admins can have a chance at becoming > Cisco > > > gurus =) > > > > > > Mike W. (former NT admin) > > > > > > "Jason" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Oh, now the IOS is Unixish ?? Phew, so by that token, all Unix experts > > > would > > > > be CCIE... so I guess the number would include all the so call > > Unix/Linux > > > > "experts" > > > > I don't remember mentioning that the ATM runs NT, most of them > actually > > > run > > > > OS2. The extra $$ you save from using open?? source OS would be waste > on > > > > support > > > > > > > > In case you have not notice, Cisco is working on a GUI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Kelly Hair"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > "Jason" - > > > > > > > > > > By your logic, Windows NT 3.1 is all you need for your Enterprise to > > > > > succeed. Good luck in that endevour! > > > > > > > > > > In response to your other point, yes, I would trust my ATM server to > > > > Linux. > > > > > The blue screen is pretty but I would prefer to have money instead. > > > Oh.. > > > > > not to mention the extra money I would have from using a an open > > source > > > OS > > > > > rather than an M$ one... > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps Cisco should throw out the Unixish IOS and replace it with a > > GUI > > > > so > > > > > everyone could write configs for routers. Sounds like a grand > idea... > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Kelly > > > > > > > > > > > What was your point ? That Multics sucks , and by the same token, > > > > > > therefore Unix sucks and NT/W2K rules !!! At least, NT/W2K was > based > > > on > > > > > > a working operating system. Anyone of you notice that Unix is all > > > about > > > > > > ego ? If Unix is finished in 1 month, why are there still people > > > > > > working on it ? On the other hand, if Unix is perfect, why the > hell > > > are > > > > > > people working on it ? If Unix promotes innovation, why is nobody > > > using > > > > > > it ? Would you trust you ATM machine to Linux ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Jim Dixon"" wrote in message > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > >> THE PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE B > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ABSTRACT > > > > > >> B is a computer language designed by D. M. Ritchie and K. L. > > > Thompson, > > > > > >> for primarily non-numeric applications such as system > programming. > > > > > >> These typically involve complex logical decision-making, and > > > > > >> processing of integers, characters, and bit strings. On the H6070 > > TSS > > > > > >> system, B programs are usually much easier to write and > understand > > > > > >> than assembly language programs, and object code efficiency is > > almost > > > > > >> as good. Implementation of simple TSS subsystems is an especially > > > > > >> appropriate use for B. This > > > > > > technical > > > > > >> report contains a description of the MH-TSS (Honeywell 6070) > > version > > > > > >> of B (by S. C. Johnson), and a tutorial introduction to most of > the > > > > > >> features of the language (by B. W. Kernighan).
call user data(4): 0XC0000000(unknown) [7:6975]
Hi i have x25 router i am using it to configure x25 route between the 2 seril interfaces but when i do the debug x25 events on the router as i am not able to communicate between the 2 serial ports i get something like this ...pls help from(6): 010301 to (6) 010303 Facilities:(0) call user data (4):0XC000(unknown) what does this mean i kow something is wrong but where ...pls tell thanx Regards Arun Sharma Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6975&t=6975 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Need a helper to answer four questions [7:6974]
Dear all, 1. What is the two status on PVC mode ? In SVC, which have three staus (call setup , transfer and call terminate). 2. Frame Relay is a protocol name or protocol type? 3. In IPX RIP, if one router is down. The other router will send three time keep alive packet to the dead router. If no response, this router will delete from the routing table. How about oin IP RIP? 4. What is benefit of partial mesh compare with fully mesh? It will use less routers or use less virtual circuits ? Thanks Ronnie Poon Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6974&t=6974 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Second Request for a Link Back! [7:6973]
I added your site www.groupstudy.com to our links pages. They are here http://www.theitweb.f2s.com/links/cisco.html in the Cisco theme. Last time I told you this, you did not reply to my mail. I thought that I would give you a second chance to link back to me. My website currently gets 500+ unique visitors per day. My links section is very popular as I specialise in IT educational websites. I want to build the most comprehensive IT links section on the Web that specialises in IT education. The reason I want your linkback is because search engines are using linkbacks more annd more to rate sites, so not only do I benefit but you do too. Please consider linking back to me. If I do not hear back from you within 14 days then I will not ask for this again. If you do link back to me, I will put you on the top section of the page so you will get more response from my visitors. If you email me back with a logo location or bannerI will add this tooSo you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Regards, Simon McArdle [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.theitweb.f2s.com/ .. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6973&t=6973 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: %@&*# RAS [7:6282]
1. with the 2509 or 2511, you still need modems 2. for the authentication piece, you can use RADIUS authentication against your NT PDC user database. There might be a piece of software that you have to download to get that mating - check Microsoft TechNet for details. (it's included in MS2000 server) -e- - Original Message - From: "NetEng" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:40 PM Subject: Re: %@&*# RAS [7:6282] > Please disregard the second question. I see that I must use a 3620. Anyone > out there using it? How's it working? Thanks again. > > Collin > > > ""NetEng"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Here is my dilemma. I need to implement a very reliable (and of course > cost > > efficient) RAS solution (currently using NT, no flames please) and here's > > what I'm looking at. > > > > Cisco 2509- I currently have 8 analog line coming from our PBX into our > > existing RAS solution. Here's my first question and I'm sure a stupid > > oneDo I still need modems? I can't find documentation > anywhere.After > > looking at cisco's website they mention TACACS+ for authentication, I have > > ACS for NT. Will that work? > > > > Cisco 2620 w/4 Port BRI NM- I can slap another BRI card in our PBX and get > 4 > > BRI lines from it. Can I go directly into the 2620? ACS work here? > > > > I only need about 8 ports so an AS is overkill. Anybody dealt with this > > before? Any suggestions welcome. Also looking at Portmaster, but would > like > > to stay cisco if possible. Thanks. > > > > Collin > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6972&t=6282 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735]
Your comment "Now that the study materials have become available, it allows > a candidate to be more focused on lab specific issues instead of on routing > and swicthing in general. As a result a candidate can now pass the lab > without having a decent broad knowledge of routing and switching, they just > need to know how to prepare for the lab. That in my opinion has devalued > the certification." I agree, and I think shortening the lab to one day will mean that the testing will have to be even more specific. If you know anything can come up on the lab, then you have to know everything, *unless* there is not enough variety of exam, so a group of 3-4 candidates taking the exam together may fail a couple of times, but by that time they know what all the labs are. (Although I'm sure that doesn't happen - much). A larger variety of labs would suppress this sort of thing. A shorter lab can only increase the multiple attempt methodology (eventually I'll get one I (we) know). It looks like I may not be going to CCIE now, mainly due to the diversity of products our company supports. I don't think I can concentrate enough on Cisco. Even so, I would not like to see the CCIE devalued. Devalue the CCIE and it automatically devalues the CCNP etc (rightly or wrongly). Gaz ""Louie Belt"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Yes you are wrong (about my perspective). I have helped several engineers > study for and pass the CCIE written as well as the lab. My concern is in > preserving the value of the cert. As for dog-eat-dog I'll help anyone who is > sincere and wants to learn - providing they are willing to put in the > effort. However, I will not "give them the answers" so that they can make > the value of my cert less. > > Prior to so much study material being available, you had to study and know > how to handle a wide array of issues, the specifics as to what is on the lab > were simply unknown and therefore you had to be prepared for anything - and > know it well. Now that the study materials have become available, it allows > a candidate to be more focused on lab specific issues instead of on routing > and swicthing in general. As a result a candidate can now pass the lab > without having a decent broad knowledge of routing and switching, they just > need to know how to prepare for the lab. That in my opinion has devalued > the certification. > > If we have 100,000 CCIEs all of which know there stuff and are a credit to > the certification then I have no problem with it. It we have 8000 CCIEs and > 1000 of them can't live up to the expectations of the certification, then it > hurts the value not only of the other 7000, but also of any future > recipients of the certification. > > I am not bitter or angry (thanks for jumping to conclusions) that the study > guides weren't around, some were when I received my cert and I certainly > used them. I don't want them to go away. I own many of the books written by > other CCIEs and use them as a reference quite often. I am thankful they are > available. The materials that exist have the potential to help all of us. My > issue is simply one of "The CCIE certification should not be devaulued" - > that is my chief concern and my reason for answering the survey the way I > did. The only reason I posted my response to the survey was because I was > asked to do so. I apologize if my opinions differ from yours and you are > therefore offended. It was not my intention to offend you. You most > certainly are entitled to your opinion and I don't expect to change your > mind. > > > Hope this clears things up a bit, otherwise we'll have to just agree to > disagree. > > Louie > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Bradley J. Wilson > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 9:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Cisco moving to a one day lab? [7:6735] > > > Well, again, Sir Edmund, just because the newcomers can be better-informed > before their attempts doesn't mean that the challenge needs to be altered or > is less of a challenge for the individual. > > Again, I'm not against making certs tougher to achieve. But it sounds like > there's a touch of bitterness that these study guides weren't around way > back when...well, that's just the way life is. Making the CCIE "tougher" > and still calling it the "CCIE" is like asking runners to run a 400m race, > but then making them run 500m without telling them. ;-) Besides, the > argument about the study materials is subjective. Was CCO around when you > took the CCIE? Were other engineers around who were studying for it? Were > used routers around for you to purchase, and perhaps set up for others to > telnet into? I'm sure there were - if you (and/or others) didn't make use > of them, then that's water under the source-route bridge. > > If you want someone to be angry at, be angry at the people who took the > CCIE, passed or not,
Re: TR card what is it? [7:6902]
It could be a card from the old DCA 9000 (later the Racal-Datacom Omnimux 9000). I don't remember it having a Token Ring interface, though. Unfortunately, I trashed all the paper documentation on that a few years ago, and the electronic documentation is on my old Mac II Si which is sitting in the corner of my garage...If I ever bring it back up, I'll let you know ;-) -e- - Original Message - From: "John Chang" To: Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 12:11 PM Subject: TR card what is it? [7:6902] > I have this Token Ring card and I don't know what it is. Can you look at > it and let me know. Thanks. > > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~johnec/tr.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6969&t=6902 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with home network [7:6922]
Came across something similar a few months ago, if you have a mixed Linux and Windows Network and you are running Samba and NAT (are you?) then unpredictable problems arise from the Linux end. Apparently documented in the Microsoft Tech Net. This particular box was a Cobalt Cube which was reverted to a previous version of the software that killed the problem. Karl - Original Message - From: "Paul Borghese" To: Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 2:55 AM Subject: RE: Problem with home network [7:6922] > Yea, I have a theory. It has to do with the Linux box, defaulting to > 100MB. Let's suppose the Linux box and PC are both running at 100 MB/sec > but the hub is only 10 MB/sec. Maybe the timing is such that it will not > work past one hop. > > When I recompiled the kernel, maybe the new kernel release changed how the > modules works on the Ethernet card, causing it to not detect 10 MB/sec > connections and to default to 100 MB/sec. > > I will do a diff on the code. > > > Who knows? > > Paul > > Daniel Cotts wrote: > > > > Since you touched the Linux box it would be the first suspect. > > Can you verify that there was no configuration change? - even > > by accident? > > If there was a change, can you roll it back to original? > > Are there other computers or printers connected to the hub? > > Is the hub single speed or dual speed? (10/100) > > (Thinking about speed/duplex mismatches.) > > How does the Linux box configure the default route? Does it > > point to its own > > E0 interface or to the remote GW? (Thinking about filling its > > ARP cache) > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Paul Borghese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 7:42 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Problem with home network [7:6922] > > > > > > > > > I have a cable modem connected to a linux box that is > > > performing NAT from my > > > invalid home network of 172.16.1.0/24 to my valid IP address > > > 209.160.20.67. > > > The 172.16.1.0 network is going into a small inexpensive hub. > > > This setup > > > has worked for about a year. > > > > > > A few days ago, I needed to do some things on the linux box. > > > When I hooked > > > everything back up my internet access was horrid. Found the > > > following: > > > > > > If I ping from 172.16.1.98 (my PC) to the following addresses: > > > > > > 172.16.1.1 (PC's Default GW, E1 interface on Linux box) > > > 0% Packet Loss > > > 209.160.20.67 (E0 Linux IP address and address PC is being > > > NATed to) 0% > > > Packet loss > > > 209.160.20.1 (GW of Linux Box) > > > 70% Packet Loss > > > > > > If I ping from the Linux box I see no packet loss to > > 172.16.1.98 or > > > 209.160.20.1. So I can now deduce the connection between the > > > Linux box and > > > the default GW is clean. > > > > > > But something is occuring with the NAT translations that > > > causes 70% packet > > > loss through the box. > > > > > > > > > Ok, so here is the puzzling thing. If I remove the hub and > > > use a crossover > > > cable between the PC and Linux box the address which is > > problamatic > > > 209.168.20.1 receives no packet loss when pinging from the PC > > > - hence fixing > > > the problem. > > > > > > So in other words, removing the hub on the 172.16.1.0 network > > > fixes the > > > connection at 209.168.20.1 ?!? > > > > > > Any ideas? > > > > > > > > > Paul Borghese > > > Report misconduct > > > and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6968&t=6922 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
