Re: Any changes for CCIE-LAB 2002 [7:29624]
> Hello, > > does someone know, if there are any changes in the ccie-lab for 2002 ? > Looking into my crystal ball, it says... Maybe They usually announce the changes on the CCIE webpage. It's a good link to bookmark and view once in a while. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/ccie_program/whatsnew.html -e- _ 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=30418&t=29624 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CCIE Practical Studies has no solution for the lab [7:30412]
Thats one of the reasons they call it VOL I :) Jokes apart, I think Cisco intends to bring out a series of these books, which may be based on the changes that the test undergoes, maybe they will bring out a solution workbook as well. >From what I have heard, it doesnt contain much/no BGP either .. is that true ? Nick Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30419&t=30412 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cisco Interactive Mentor [7:30344]
I think you can use it do stuff like VOIP(use the CIM for VOIP), which eventhough has been rated as BASIC, would cover pretty much most of the stuff that we can expect to see in the labs. Of course, as mentioned elsewhere, Voice (VoFR, VoATM, VoIP etc) is an evolving topic, and the weightage will indeed increase with time. The other ones(IP ROUTING etc.), from what I have heard, cover pretty much basic CCNP stuff (even less). Nick Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30420&t=30344 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Please help : OSPF summary route cost. [7:30297]
Can you send the config for this scenario ? Nick Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30421&t=30297 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VPN Error [7:30415]
Put in the vpdn local name & vpdn source ip address, you also dont have the HGW name configged as terminate from hostname. hth Nick Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30422&t=30415 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VPN Error [7:30415]
sorry about the cryptic msg. earlier, i realised that there were a few more errors in the config as well.. * use aaa and specify local authentication (you can use radius or tacacs) * specify terminate-from hostname (NAS) local name (HGW) Rest all seems to be ok... On the router, turn debug vpdn error , debug vpdn event on, and turn the debugs on authentication as well. That will point to where its failing. Nick Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30423&t=30415 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: certification salary posting-a new direction [7:30237]
Sorry to hear about the layoff. Have you had any luck recently? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Odette II Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: certification salary posting-a new direction [7:30237] I updated my MCSE to 2000 back in November, and it actually struck a little notice with a couple of head-hunters (within minutes of me updating my ComputerJobs.com and Monster.Com resumes if you can believe that!)... but they were looking for a position that I wasn't interested in... and the money was lower than my under-avg. salary (60K w/7.5 yrs experience) was before I was laid off Sept. 10, 2001. That aside, my main interest in updating my MCSE was for the AVVID track; though, so that I don't starve, I may be brushing up my skills on Exchange 2000, as that seems to be a surprisingly high demand skill at this time in the DFW area. ... but not before I finish the Support exam for completing my CCNP. :) Carry on Ladies and Gentlemen... It's time to rev up your engines for that New Year coming 'round the corner! -Mark Odette II CCNA, 01001011% CCNP, MCSE 2K/4.0, A+ Certified. :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of adam lee Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 4:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: certification salary posting-a new direction [7:30237] I think the participants in the survey probably obtained a good salary while the economy was steaming along. Anyone trying to obtain these salaries now while looking for a new job will be in for a rudely awakening. Of course, there are exceptions, but in general, I believe that's true. Salaries aside, I believe the article stated that experience is more important then certifications. I believe that is true as well. Anyone update his/her MCSE NT 4.0 to Win2k yet? The Jan issue of MCP mag says that peeps can get an avg. of $4,400 more then a peeps with NT 4.0 cert. Believable? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steven A. Ridder Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: certification salary posting-a new direction [7:30237] I don't think the survey's are inflated. There's one on tcp mag also that seems OK too. They seem right on topic. ""Puckette, Larry (TIFPC)"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > A new direction for the topic It seems that the consensus is that the > surveys are inflated. I cannot think of a better forum that would give an > accurate result than this one. And with the topic having strung on this > long, I must not be the only one on the list that has this on their mind > right now. Has the list ever did it's own survey to get a more realistic > view? Knowing that they aren't underpaid or as underpaid may remove some > strife from some, and let them focus more on studying > > Larry Puckette > Network Analyst CCNA,MCP,LANCP > Temple Inland > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 512/434-1838 > > -Original Message- > From: Kaminski, Shawn G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: certification salary posting [7:30237] > > I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel that these salary surveys are > a load of crap. As Sam mentioned, he doesn't support the claims of the > salary survey and I agree with him. I think the name of these survey's > should be changed to "Salary's that we wish we made". People are probably > ashamed of the salary's they actually make and inflate the crap out of them > for the survey. Just my opinion. > > Shawn > > -Original Message- > From: sam sneed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 6:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: certification salary posting [7:30237] > > > group, > > I found this link on a microsoft site. It mainly analyzes the the salaries > of people holding Microsoft certifications. The applicable part is on the > 3rd page of the report which lists the estimated salaries of all different > cert's including CCNA,CCNP, CCIE. > > http://mcpmag.com/salarysurveys/ > > I'm not supporting the claims on this site. I'm posting it here because > people always ask the list for this info so i hope noone comes after me for > posting this. I currently hold MCSE and CCNA with 2.5 years experience and > don't make what the list says my average would be, and this is working in > NYC where they pay very well. > > food for thought > > sam sneed Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30424&t=30237 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Telnet to PIX from outside interface [7:30413]
PIX cannot be telnet from outside. Use SSH instead. ""ietobe"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi,Guy > Can anybody tell me how to allow telnet from outside network on PIX? > > Tks > > Gabriel Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30426&t=30413 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reflection X [7:29874]
I don't know if you ever got an answer to this, but with Reflections, the escape sequence is Ctrl+6 (without the shift) - Original Message - From: "Walter Rogowski" To: Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 6:40 AM Subject: Reflection X [7:29874] > I telnet using Reflection X to a terminal server that in turn connects > via console to various Cisco routers etc. When trying to use the > CTL+SHIFT+6 keyboard seq to return to my previous connection it does not > work. Does anyone know how to set up Reflection X to do this? > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here _ 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=30427&t=29874 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCIE Core Technologies (was Re: The old "how to get routes into [7:30428]
> If its not asking for too much, can you let me know a plan that I can follow > to crack the lab (already passed the written) I know its difficult to create > a plan without actually knowing what I know, and you might say that "one > size doesnt fit all" thats true as well, but there would be a list of Do's & > donts and a sequence where one should > begin and where to end (if there is one :) Also, a list of absolute must > technologies that one must know back to front (specially ATM & Voice, how > much should we concentrate on, isnt Cisco ATM solutions an overkill ?) > You'll end up creating your own plan. Mine was huge with lots of study because my configuration knowledge was so weak. Here is an incomplete list of the core technologies that you must know - most of this list comes from Networkers 2000 CCIE Power Session presentation: Layer 2 WAN technologies Frame Relay ISDN (Basic Rate) Serial (HDLC encapsulation) ATM (see reference page below) http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/certifications/ATM_FAQs.html Layer 2 LAN technologies Catalyst 5000 operation Catalyst 3900 (Token Ring Switch) operation Layer 3 IP Interior Gateway Protocols (RIPv1, RIPv2, IGRP, EIGRP, OSPF, ODR) Exterior Gateway Protocols (BGP4) Route redistribution Route filtering Policy routing Dial-on Demand Routing (DDR) Security IP Multicast Layer 3 IPX Routing protocols (RIP, EIGRP, NLSP) Route redistribution Route filtering SAP filtering and creation DLSw Voice over IP (see reference page below) http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/certifications/voice_faqs.html QoS IOS Features (examples are NAT, HSRP, DNS, DHCP, NTP, HTTP) The CCIE website has this page in reference to the content of the exam: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/certifications/routing.html You should probably bookmark this page and refer to it occassionally: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/ccie_program/whatsnew.html As for a plan, I'd suggest an honest self-appraisal (or have someone else appraise you) on your ability to configure those technologies. maybe a 1 to 5 rating, 5 being strong, 1 being weak, on all the core technologies. Finding the study resources isn't difficult - they're in the archives for this list and the groupstudy ccielab list. The method that Caslow teaches (identify the issue) in his book has been a good sequencing tool for me and many other aspiring CCIE's. It pretty much says learn the underlying technology, verify the configuration of it, and when it's complete, build the next level of configuration. After the self-appraisal and knowing where the resources are, you can create your plan of attack for studying those subjects where you need to be a 5. Good Luck -e- _ 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=30428&t=30428 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: study group DFW [7:30258]
I'd start by checking out the DFW Cisco User Group. There is a study group page on the site. http://www.cisco-users.org/ HTH, Casey >From: "marqman" >Reply-To: "marqman" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: study group DFW [7:30258] >Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 21:37:02 -0500 > >Anyone know of a CCNP study group in the DFW area? Anyone want to start >one? I have some work equipment I can borrow and possibly get permission to >look at online equipment sometimes. Might even be able to hold study >session >at my place of business in the evening (that might be pushing it). Email >me >if interested. > >Sincerely, >Mark A. Villanova >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sincerely, >Mark A. Villanova >760-321-5111 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today >Only $9.95 per month! >http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30429&t=30258 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VPN Error [7:30415]
Thanks Nick but I am using Win2K server authentication , and not the Radius server or any ACS server , how should I go about then ? I am now able to get the establish the connection and the tunnel is created as well and I am getting the following message as well : 4# r4# r4#sh vpdn %No active L2TP tunnels %No active L2F tunnels PPTP Tunnel and Session Information Total tunnels 1 sessions 1 LocID Remote Name StateRemote Address Port Sessions 5 estabd 202.157.71.47 1120 1 LocID RemID TunID IntfUsername State Last Chg 5 49152 5 Vi1 technosys\adm estabd 00:26:29 %No active PPPoE tunnels r4# but I am still now able to come in to the Win2K domain . Do guide me what I should do . thanks, Navin Parwal ""Nick S."" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > sorry about the cryptic msg. earlier, i realised that there were a few more > errors in the config as well.. > > * use aaa and specify local authentication (you can use radius or tacacs) > * specify terminate-from hostname (NAS) local name (HGW) > > Rest all seems to be ok... > > On the router, turn debug vpdn error , debug vpdn event on, and turn the > debugs on authentication as well. That will point to where its failing. > > Nick Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30430&t=30415 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Practical Studies has no solution for the lab [7:30431]
To be frank, I think I have enough of BGP... And there is lots and lots of resource (very good ones too) on BGP... Unfortunately, BGP is one of those things that you will appreciate only when you do a large scale implementation or model.. LOL ""Nick S."" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Thats one of the reasons they call it VOL I :) Jokes apart, I think Cisco > intends to bring out a series of these books, which may be based on the > changes that the test undergoes, maybe they will bring out a solution > workbook as well. > > From what I have heard, it doesnt contain much/no BGP either .. is that true > ? > > Nick Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30431&t=30431 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Concord Nethealth QN [7:30289]
With Nethealth 4.5 aND 4.6, your users can login through a web browser and run reports. You have to configure your Nethealth server to allow this however. The cd comes with proper setup. If you have more questions, let me know... Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30432&t=30289 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
simple ip monitor [7:30433]
Hello, I am looking for a simple program to monitor an ip and email me when it goes up or down. Can anyone recommend a very basic program like this? thank you Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30433&t=30433 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple ip monitor [7:30433]
Search for Big Brother The k1d ""2387"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hello, I am looking for a simple program to monitor an ip and email me when > it > goes up or down. Can anyone recommend a very basic program like this? > thank you Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30434&t=30433 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CCIE Practical Studies has no solution for the lab [7:30436]
The authors intentionally left out the solutions for the big labs. The authors wanted to discourage readers from peeking at the solutions. They will be available on Cisco's web site. I heard the link is currently dead? I'm sure it will be available in the very near future. -Original Message- From: Nick S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 1:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: CCIE Practical Studies has no solution for the lab [7:30412] Thats one of the reasons they call it VOL I :) Jokes apart, I think Cisco intends to bring out a series of these books, which may be based on the changes that the test undergoes, maybe they will bring out a solution workbook as well. >From what I have heard, it doesnt contain much/no BGP either .. is that true ? Nick Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30436&t=30436 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple ip monitor [7:30433]
Cisco will be comming out with DHRP which will do just that. ""2387"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hello, I am looking for a simple program to monitor an ip and email me when > it > goes up or down. Can anyone recommend a very basic program like this? > thank you Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30437&t=30433 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IBGP [7:943]
>Must be a field in one of the BGP packet headers preventing IBGP from doing >this... Must consult Doyle... > >Peter Morgan Look at the ORIGIN attribute. > > >-Original Message- >From: Mark M. Forest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 28 December 2001 08:27 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: IBGP [9:943] > > >Mechanism is not important...split horizon would not actually be a factor >here, mostly due to how split horizon actually works. If it were split >horizon then we would actually only see the characteristic of no >readvertisement towards the neighbor the route was learned from. > >IBGP acts differantly in respect that if it is learned from ANY IBGP >neighbor it will not readvertise to ANY other IBGP neighbor...this is why >the need for full-mesh of IBGP neigbors is necessary. In addition the >route-reflection model would be mute. > >But the reality is that IBGP full mesh or reflection is necessary. One major >key factor is to insure that each BGP speaker is maintaining the same >database. If not then sub-optimal routing occurs and you can kiss the >integrity of your implementation goodbye. > >If anything else lies wasted, Junipers implementation of BGP is one of the >most sound in the industry. In fact, without it they could never compete in >the marketplace they are in. > >milo > > > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 10:47 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: IBGP [9:943] > > >Mark M. Forest wrote: >> >> BGP rules...IBGP will not re-advertise to IBGP peers any routes >> learned from >> another IBGP peer. This is why the IBGP mesh is a full-mesh. >> >> milo >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 11:39 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: IBGP [9:943] >> >> >> if router-A and router-B are in the same AS,and router-A set up >> IBGP >> relationship with router-B, how does the router-A prevent the >> routes learned >> from router-B via IBGP from advertising back to router-B? >> >> regards >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/juniper.html >> >> >> _ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com >> >> >Hi: > >Of course, I know that the router-A do not advertise routes learned from >router-B via IBGP to IBGP peers, but I want to know what mechanism is used >to prevent it from occuring?(split horizon or as-path,but i think that it >does not base on as-path) > >regards >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/juniper.html > > >_ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/juniper.html >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/juniper.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30438&t=943 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eigrp summary address problem [7:30439]
Hi, I got a simple question on eigrp summary address. here is the senario: Serial0-RouterA--Serial1Serial0--RouterB 172.16.1.1/24172.16.25.1/24172.16.25.2/24 RouterA: router eigrp 1 passive-interface s1 network 172.16.0.0 no auto-summary router igrp 1 passive-interface s0 network 172.16.0.0 int s1 ip summary-address eigrp 1 172.16.1.0 255.255.255.0 My question is : How come on routerB , I cannot see the route to 172.16.1.0 , it only shows 172.16.0.0 as connected. This example is from Jeff Doyle's page 382. it shows the 172.16.1.0/24 can be redistributed into igrp . Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. Raymond Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30439&t=30439 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: study group DFW [7:30258]
Funny, I've seen multiple references to this page and this is the first working link. Much thanks. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Casey Fahey Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 4:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: study group DFW [7:30258] I'd start by checking out the DFW Cisco User Group. There is a study group page on the site. http://www.cisco-users.org/ HTH, Casey >From: "marqman" >Reply-To: "marqman" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: study group DFW [7:30258] >Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 21:37:02 -0500 > >Anyone know of a CCNP study group in the DFW area? Anyone want to start >one? I have some work equipment I can borrow and possibly get permission to >look at online equipment sometimes. Might even be able to hold study >session >at my place of business in the evening (that might be pushing it). Email >me >if interested. > >Sincerely, >Mark A. Villanova >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sincerely, >Mark A. Villanova >760-321-5111 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today >Only $9.95 per month! >http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30440&t=30258 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: PayPal Scam [7:28519]
Many of us use PayPal to buy equipment for our studies. I have made transactions directly from this list in the past using PayPal.. (gotta love that 2600 I got for pennies) I think this is directly related to some of the content of this list and I for one appreciate Jason's warning. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jonathan Hays Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PayPal Scam [7:28519] Jason wrote: > > Found this on one of the newsgroup... Might be good to forward this to your > friends. I encounter the same problem and thought I was the only one until I > saw the following Do a search on Google, etc about Paypal scam and you > will see a few other similar sites !! Be WARNED. > > -- > > BREAKING NEWS ABOUT PAYPAL SCAM! IF YOU HAVE AN ACCOUNT WITH PAYPAL YOU MAY > WANT TO READ THIS BREAKING NEWS FROM.ZDNET, CNN AND THE NEWYORK TIMES. > > CLICK ON THE LINK > http://www.paypalwarning.com/Default.htm I disagree with your need to post this. This is a Cisco study newsgroup and frankly I personally would prefer not to see any way off-topic messages posted. Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30441&t=28519 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple ip monitor [7:30433]
Big Brother is a bit much for what most people need. While it is a great tool, and I've setup quite a few BB servers, for basic monitoring its overkill. If you're running it under UNIX, goto http://freshmeat.net and look around. Theres atleast a dozen simple network projects. Also keep in mind BB doesn't use SNMP, you have to add that feature in, so if you plan on expanding into more detailed checkings on your router, you're gonna need to pay a visit to deadcat (yes, the name of the BB extensions/modules site is http://www.deadcat.net) BB is a great tool, its got great features, but if you want something REALLY simple, look around freshmeat. Btw, BB can be found at http://www.bb4.com -jeff On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, c1sc0k1d wrote: > Search for Big Brother > > The k1d > > > > ""2387"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hello, I am looking for a simple program to monitor an ip and email me > when > > it > > goes up or down. Can anyone recommend a very basic program like this? > > thank you Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30442&t=30433 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reflection X [7:29874]
Thank you very much, it worked! - Original Message - From: "EA Louie" To: Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 9:40 AM Subject: Re: Reflection X [7:29874] > I don't know if you ever got an answer to this, but with Reflections, the > escape sequence is Ctrl+6 (without the shift) > > - Original Message - > From: "Walter Rogowski" > To: > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 6:40 AM > Subject: Reflection X [7:29874] > > > > I telnet using Reflection X to a terminal server that in turn connects > > via console to various Cisco routers etc. When trying to use the > > CTL+SHIFT+6 keyboard seq to return to my previous connection it does not > > work. Does anyone know how to set up Reflection X to do this? > > > > > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here > _ > 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=30443&t=29874 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: study group DFW [7:30258]
Much agreed!, the DFW CUG is quite popular... Casey Fahey wrote: >I'd start by checking out the DFW Cisco User Group. There is a study group >page on the site. > >http://www.cisco-users.org/ > >HTH, > >Casey > >>From: "marqman" >>Reply-To: "marqman" >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: study group DFW [7:30258] >>Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 21:37:02 -0500 >> >>Anyone know of a CCNP study group in the DFW area? Anyone want to start >>one? I have some work equipment I can borrow and possibly get permission to >>look at online equipment sometimes. Might even be able to hold study >>session >>at my place of business in the evening (that might be pushing it). Email >>me >>if interested. >> >>Sincerely, >>Mark A. Villanova >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>Sincerely, >>Mark A. Villanova >>760-321-5111 >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >>Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today >>Only $9.95 per month! >>http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 >> >_ >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30444&t=30258 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eigrp summary address problem [7:30439]
Hi Raymond, I would anticipate that the routing information Router B is receiving is only IGRP routing info, due to the fact you made S1 not pass any EIGRP routing updates - whether they are static or dynamic with the PASSIVE-INTERFACE command. >From the config, only IGRP is allowed to distribute routing info out of S1 on Router A. This is correctly advertising only the SUMMARY route for the network at it's class boundry, ie 172.16.0.0. Phil. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30445&t=30439 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446]
After a fun evening last night, I have decided not to trust the autosensing on ethernet interfaces anymore. I was at a branch office where the users could not access the corporate network. The router, a 1720 setup as a bridge with the same IP address for the FastEthernet as the Serial subinterface, both configured for bridge-group 1. It was connected to a 2620 at the corporate office via a Fractional Frame Relay connection. I changed the switch out with an old spare hub I had lying around, and connected only one workstation from the local network. After starting the router up, I could ping the local workstation, and I could ping devices on the corporate network, so both my FastEthernet and Serial interfaces were working fine. However, I could not ping anything on the corporate network from my workstation, nor could I from a telnet connection to my corporate router ping the workstation, so traffic was not being passed through between the interfaces. That looked like a typical routing problem, but the only problem was that I was not routing, I was bridging, so ? I did a "show bridge 1 group" and saw that the FastEthernet was in a blocking state by the spanning tree, so something was wrong here. I cleared the arp table on the router and on all other routers and switches. I tried to assign a different mac address to the FE interface. I tried a different workstation. No matter what I did, it kept being in a blocking state. I went in and did a "bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled" on the interface, and it changed to forwarding state, but I could still not pass traffic through. This is when I called TAC, but after I guided them through to a telnet connection to my routers, they decided after three hours that something weird was going on with the router, and they did an RMA for a replacement unit. However, I decided to continue my troubleshooting, because I hate to give up. I reconfigured everything, I tried to create a bridge-group 2 instead, I forced it into IP routing, and back off it again, but no matter what, it kept going into blocking mode (I had removed the spanning-disabled command again at that time). That's when it hit me to try and force the speed on the interface. It was in AUTO, and my switch had been auto 10/100, but my hub was only 10. I changed it from auto to 10 and power cycled the router. PLING!!! Now it started up and after the listening and learning, it went in forwarding state, and I could now ping through my router, and I could connect my workstation to the corporate network. What makes this strange is that I can apparently use my FastEthernet interface from the router even though the speed is wrong, but the STP see's this and blocks the interface for switched traffic. WEIRD! Read the entire case study here: http://www.RouterChief.com/CaseStudies/1.htm Ole Ole Drews Jensen Systems Network Manager CCNP, MCSE, MCP+I RWR Enterprises, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.RouterChief.com NEED A JOB ??? http://www.oledrews.com/job Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30446&t=30446 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Practical Studies has no solution for the lab [7:30447]
Well, hey. That is what this group is for! If you get stuck, give the problem to the group and we will find a solution. Also, if you are looking for some BGP practice labs, check out CCIE Practice Kit by Satterlee and Hutnik. Most of the book is weak, but the BGP section is good. Paul - Original Message - From: "Jim Brown" To: Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 11:17 AM Subject: RE: CCIE Practical Studies has no solution for the lab [7:30436] > The authors intentionally left out the solutions for the big labs. The > authors wanted to discourage readers from peeking at the solutions. They > will be available on Cisco's web site. > > I heard the link is currently dead? I'm sure it will be available in the > very near future. > > -Original Message- > From: Nick S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 1:25 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: CCIE Practical Studies has no solution for the lab [7:30412] > > > Thats one of the reasons they call it VOL I :) Jokes apart, I think Cisco > intends to bring out a series of these books, which may be based on the > changes that the test undergoes, maybe they will bring out a solution > workbook as well. > > >From what I have heard, it doesnt contain much/no BGP either .. is that true > ? > > Nick Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30447&t=30447 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446]
An interesting read, particularly since I am reviewing Kennedy clark's cisco Lan Switching book prior to reviewing Cat5K and Cat 3920 configuration. I am somewhat surprised at both the phenomenon and the concludion. Spanning tree blocks for particular reasons. when you concluded that your configurations were identical at all offices, does that mean that your port negotiations were set to auto everywhere else? both on the routers and on the local switches? if so, I would expect to see similar problems elsewhere. is it possible that there was a duplicate mac someplace in another part of the bridged network, one that was being picked up by STP and interpreted as a loop? You mention changing macs of interfaces as part of your experimentation. Are you certain that this process was not part of the solution? To be frank, I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason why the FE port on the router would go into blocking. I can see that hapening on the serial port for reasons that have been discussed on this group in the past. I can't come up with a rationale as to why hard setting of speed and duplex would make a difference. I suppose one MIGHT conclude that if the port is in full duplex, the STP process MIGHT see a loop occuring over the two different wire pairs. that's about the only wild rationale I can come up with. And that one is really stretching the point / bug / whatever. In any case, thanks for the good read. Chuck ""Ole Drews Jensen"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > After a fun evening last night, I have decided not to trust the autosensing > on ethernet interfaces anymore. > > I was at a branch office where the users could not access the corporate > network. The router, a 1720 setup as a bridge with the same IP address for > the FastEthernet as the Serial subinterface, both configured for > bridge-group 1. It was connected to a 2620 at the corporate office via a > Fractional Frame Relay connection. > > I changed the switch out with an old spare hub I had lying around, and > connected only one workstation from the local network. After starting the > router up, I could ping the local workstation, and I could ping devices on > the corporate network, so both my FastEthernet and Serial interfaces were > working fine. However, I could not ping anything on the corporate network > from my workstation, nor could I from a telnet connection to my corporate > router ping the workstation, so traffic was not being passed through between > the interfaces. > > That looked like a typical routing problem, but the only problem was that I > was not routing, I was bridging, so ? > > I did a "show bridge 1 group" and saw that the FastEthernet was in a > blocking state by the spanning tree, so something was wrong here. I cleared > the arp table on the router and on all other routers and switches. I tried > to assign a different mac address to the FE interface. I tried a different > workstation. No matter what I did, it kept being in a blocking state. > > I went in and did a "bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled" on the interface, and > it changed to forwarding state, but I could still not pass traffic through. > > This is when I called TAC, but after I guided them through to a telnet > connection to my routers, they decided after three hours that something > weird was going on with the router, and they did an RMA for a replacement > unit. > > However, I decided to continue my troubleshooting, because I hate to give > up. I reconfigured everything, I tried to create a bridge-group 2 instead, I > forced it into IP routing, and back off it again, but no matter what, it > kept going into blocking mode (I had removed the spanning-disabled command > again at that time). > > That's when it hit me to try and force the speed on the interface. It was in > AUTO, and my switch had been auto 10/100, but my hub was only 10. I changed > it from auto to 10 and power cycled the router. PLING!!! Now it started up > and after the listening and learning, it went in forwarding state, and I > could now ping through my router, and I could connect my workstation to the > corporate network. > > What makes this strange is that I can apparently use my FastEthernet > interface from the router even though the speed is wrong, but the STP see's > this and blocks the interface for switched traffic. WEIRD! > > Read the entire case study here: > > http://www.RouterChief.com/CaseStudies/1.htm > > Ole > > > Ole Drews Jensen > Systems Network Manager > CCNP, MCSE, MCP+I > RWR Enterprises, Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.RouterChief.com > > NEED A JOB ??? > http://www.oledrews.com/job > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30448&t=30446 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.
Half Successfull ping [7:30449]
Anyone have an ideas on this half successfull ping across two directly connect serial interfaces? Clock rate, encapsulation, controllers and cables look OK. Address on R4 is 172.16.1.4/24 and R2 is 172.16.1.5/24 . Here is the ping from R4 R4#ping 172.16.1.5 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.5, timeout is 2 seconds: .!.!. Success rate is 40 percent (2/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 32/32/32 ms Same thing from R2 to R4 R2#ping 172.16.1.4 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.4, timeout is 2 seconds: !.!.! Success rate is 60 percent (3/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 28/30/32 ms Thanks Randy Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30449&t=30449 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Half Successfull ping [7:30449]
sure. you have two routes to the other destination, on both routers. the routers, in other words, are load sharing based on something in their routing tables. post your entire configs. or at least your show ip route results. Chuck ""McHugh Randy"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Anyone have an ideas on this half successfull ping across two directly > connect serial interfaces? Clock rate, encapsulation, controllers and cables > look OK. Address on R4 is 172.16.1.4/24 and R2 is 172.16.1.5/24 . Here is > the ping from R4 > R4#ping 172.16.1.5 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.5, timeout is 2 seconds: > .!.!. > Success rate is 40 percent (2/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 32/32/32 ms > > Same thing from R2 to R4 > R2#ping 172.16.1.4 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.4, timeout is 2 seconds: > !.!.! > Success rate is 60 percent (3/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 28/30/32 ms > Thanks > Randy Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30451&t=30449 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ios version for 3102? [7:30199]
They run 12.x. You can netboot the box too. ""George Dodds"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Just wondering what is the most recent ios i can run > on a 3102 router. > > Are these y2k compliant? doesnt really matter if not > it's only to play with. > > Cheers > > George > > = > George Dodds > > CCNA, MCP > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Everything you'll ever need on one web page > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > http://uk.my.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30452&t=30199 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Half Successfull ping [7:30449]
maybe there is a route round,paste your config or sh ip route result! > Anyone have an ideas on this half successfull ping across two directly > connect serial interfaces? Clock rate, encapsulation, controllers and cables > look OK. Address on R4 is 172.16.1.4/24 and R2 is 172.16.1.5/24 . Here is > the ping from R4 > R4#ping 172.16.1.5 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.5, timeout is 2 seconds: > .!.!. > Success rate is 40 percent (2/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 32/32/32 ms > > Same thing from R2 to R4 > R2#ping 172.16.1.4 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.4, timeout is 2 seconds: > !.!.! > Success rate is 60 percent (3/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 28/30/32 ms > Thanks > Randy Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30453&t=30449 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
setting up NPAT using only one ethernet interface (2501) [7:30454]
Hi, can I, if so, how would I go about setting up NPAT on my 2501's only ethernet port. I am confused as to how my router will be able to distinguish inside/outside NAT on the primary/secondary interfaces. Essentially I would like to now how to configure the router to do this with a rudimentary explanation what is happening. I can find thousands of descriptions of how to set up NAT but none of them show how to do this over a single LAN interface. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time, John __ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30454&t=30454 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446]
Chuck, Just a (me too.) to add to your commitments. I'm not familiar with the fact that a router (cisco?) actually ran span tree or perform ST cals. However I have seen an FE interface close down due to a wiring problem where an installer wired two rooms using 568B specs. This cause the router to be unable to negotiate the 10/100 connection between the clients! two cents Bill Harrison -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 5:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446] An interesting read, particularly since I am reviewing Kennedy clark's cisco Lan Switching book prior to reviewing Cat5K and Cat 3920 configuration. I am somewhat surprised at both the phenomenon and the concludion. Spanning tree blocks for particular reasons. when you concluded that your configurations were identical at all offices, does that mean that your port negotiations were set to auto everywhere else? both on the routers and on the local switches? if so, I would expect to see similar problems elsewhere. is it possible that there was a duplicate mac someplace in another part of the bridged network, one that was being picked up by STP and interpreted as a loop? You mention changing macs of interfaces as part of your experimentation. Are you certain that this process was not part of the solution? To be frank, I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason why the FE port on the router would go into blocking. I can see that hapening on the serial port for reasons that have been discussed on this group in the past. I can't come up with a rationale as to why hard setting of speed and duplex would make a difference. I suppose one MIGHT conclude that if the port is in full duplex, the STP process MIGHT see a loop occuring over the two different wire pairs. that's about the only wild rationale I can come up with. And that one is really stretching the point / bug / whatever. In any case, thanks for the good read. Chuck ""Ole Drews Jensen"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > After a fun evening last night, I have decided not to trust the autosensing > on ethernet interfaces anymore. > > I was at a branch office where the users could not access the corporate > network. The router, a 1720 setup as a bridge with the same IP address for > the FastEthernet as the Serial subinterface, both configured for > bridge-group 1. It was connected to a 2620 at the corporate office via a > Fractional Frame Relay connection. > > I changed the switch out with an old spare hub I had lying around, and > connected only one workstation from the local network. After starting the > router up, I could ping the local workstation, and I could ping devices on > the corporate network, so both my FastEthernet and Serial interfaces were > working fine. However, I could not ping anything on the corporate network > from my workstation, nor could I from a telnet connection to my corporate > router ping the workstation, so traffic was not being passed through between > the interfaces. > > That looked like a typical routing problem, but the only problem was that I > was not routing, I was bridging, so ? > > I did a "show bridge 1 group" and saw that the FastEthernet was in a > blocking state by the spanning tree, so something was wrong here. I cleared > the arp table on the router and on all other routers and switches. I tried > to assign a different mac address to the FE interface. I tried a different > workstation. No matter what I did, it kept being in a blocking state. > > I went in and did a "bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled" on the interface, and > it changed to forwarding state, but I could still not pass traffic through. > > This is when I called TAC, but after I guided them through to a telnet > connection to my routers, they decided after three hours that something > weird was going on with the router, and they did an RMA for a replacement > unit. > > However, I decided to continue my troubleshooting, because I hate to give > up. I reconfigured everything, I tried to create a bridge-group 2 instead, I > forced it into IP routing, and back off it again, but no matter what, it > kept going into blocking mode (I had removed the spanning-disabled command > again at that time). > > That's when it hit me to try and force the speed on the interface. It was in > AUTO, and my switch had been auto 10/100, but my hub was only 10. I changed > it from auto to 10 and power cycled the router. PLING!!! Now it started up > and after the listening and learning, it went in forwarding state, and I > could now ping through my router, and I could connect my workstation to the > corporate network. > > What makes this strange is that I can apparently use my FastEthernet > interface from the router even though the speed is wrong, but the STP see's > this and blocks the interface for switched traffic. WEIRD! > > Read th
CID [7:30456]
Team, I am studying to take the CID test in about two weeks, I am using the following books: Cisco - CID Exam Certification Guide and Cisco - Internetwork Design The problem that I am having is that there is a lot of overlapping with these two books but a the same time some gaps for example. The CID-Exam book has a lot of materials in SNA The Internetwork Design has a lot of materials on Microsoft and Frame relay Question, which one is the correct one.The one in which I really should concentrate for my test... Both books are very good to have as a reference besides using them for the test. Thanks, JB Juan Blanco MCSE, CCNA, CCNP, CCDA Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30456&t=30456 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Telnet to PIX from outside interface [7:30413]
Hi, It is genral knowledge that a PIX firewall can not be telneted into from the outside interface, however some documentations am reviewing recently seem to say the opposite. If you workstation IP address is eg 216.72.211.12, try the command below: PIX(config)#Telnet 216.72.211.12 255.255.255.255 outside See whether it will sought out your problem. Regards. Oletu - Original Message - From: ietobe To: Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:28 PM Subject: Telnet to PIX from outside interface [7:30413] > Hi,Guy > Can anybody tell me how to allow telnet from outside network on PIX? > > Tks > > Gabriel _ 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=30457&t=30413 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: setting up NPAT using only one ethernet interface (2501) [7:30458]
John, What if you create subinterfaces, connect your isp link to a hub and your router the same hub JB -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Mairs Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 10:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: setting up NPAT using only one ethernet interface (2501) [7:30454] Hi, can I, if so, how would I go about setting up NPAT on my 2501's only ethernet port. I am confused as to how my router will be able to distinguish inside/outside NAT on the primary/secondary interfaces. Essentially I would like to now how to configure the router to do this with a rudimentary explanation what is happening. I can find thousands of descriptions of how to set up NAT but none of them show how to do this over a single LAN interface. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time, John __ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30458&t=30458 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: setting up NPAT using only one ethernet interface (2501) [7:30459]
Interesting. I assume you're trying to place global and locally addresses machines on the same L2 ethernet and use secondary addresses to place the router on both L3 networks. This part is straight forward, just remember to disable icmp-redirects on this interface to remove a couple ambiguities. For some special cases I've used policy routing to direct traffic to "the right" nat pool. In your case just base it on source address for the locally addressed endpoints. I've also used loopback addresses to create the outside interface, if you need such a thing. Together those should work for what you're trying to do. But it's far from the intended deployment senario and wouldn't get support for any interesting bugs that are uncovered. There are examples of both of these situations I think it's just a matter of putting it all together. And talk about slow. I'm sure others will have different approaches. Good Luck, Darrell John Mairs wrote: > > Hi, > > can I, if so, how would I go about setting up NPAT on > my 2501's only ethernet port. I am confused as to how > my router will be able to distinguish inside/outside > NAT on the primary/secondary interfaces. > > Essentially I would like to now how to configure the > router to do this with a rudimentary explanation what > is happening. > > I can find thousands of descriptions of how to set up > NAT but none of them show how to do this over a single > LAN interface. > > Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks for your time, > > John > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30459&t=30459 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CID [7:30456]
Focus on the CID book. You need to know the SNA backward and forward. I had alot of questions on it. I used boson test 1 to help me find my weakness and where to focus my studies. Do not underestimate the test it is tough but doable. Ronnie ""Juan Blanco"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Team, > I am studying to take the CID test in about two weeks, I am using the > following books: > > Cisco - CID Exam Certification Guide > and > Cisco - Internetwork Design > > The problem that I am having is that there is a lot of overlapping with > these two books but a the same time some gaps for example. > > The CID-Exam book has a lot of materials in SNA > > The Internetwork Design has a lot of materials on Microsoft and Frame relay > > > Question, which one is the correct one.The one in which I really should > concentrate for my test... > > Both books are very good to have as a reference besides using them for the > test. > > > Thanks, > > JB > > > Juan Blanco > MCSE, CCNA, CCNP, CCDA Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30461&t=30456 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ios version for 3102? [7:30199]
As far as boot from FLASH and run from RAM versions, the best I could get without hanging during reload was 12.0(8) on the 3104s and 3204s. The 3102s for some reason had no problems with 12.0(9). I have since replaced all my 3000's, so I cannot speak about 12.1 or 12.2. Don't forget the MZMaker utility. It allows you to compress IOS that is run from RAM. Most of the new 12.1 & 12.2 share RAM and FLASH resources in the 2500 series line-up. Unlike the 2500s, the 3000's are limited to 8 FLASH and 16 RAM. All the best !!! Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of AMR Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 7:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ios version for 3102? [7:30199] They run 12.x. You can netboot the box too. ""George Dodds"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Just wondering what is the most recent ios i can run > on a 3102 router. > > Are these y2k compliant? doesnt really matter if not > it's only to play with. > > Cheers > > George > > = > George Dodds > > CCNA, MCP > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Everything you'll ever need on one web page > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > http://uk.my.yahoo.com _ 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=30460&t=30199 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446]
It's unfortunate that sometimes when things break, they don't perform in expected ways. Rather it truly was an Autosense problem or not, who knows. But it brings up a chance to talk about Autosense. I've had it bite me more than once. I've had problems with Autosense that didn't show up until months after installation. It doesn't matter if its Cisco to Cisco or Cisco to another vendor, I've had to lock down ports at certain speeds and modes to solve problems on several occasions. Just to pass along some experience, you may always be better off hard setting your options. Nice persistence Mr. Jensen, it's cool to stick with something until you can make it work. Chris -Original Message- From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 6:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446] An interesting read, particularly since I am reviewing Kennedy clark's cisco Lan Switching book prior to reviewing Cat5K and Cat 3920 configuration. I am somewhat surprised at both the phenomenon and the concludion. Spanning tree blocks for particular reasons. when you concluded that your configurations were identical at all offices, does that mean that your port negotiations were set to auto everywhere else? both on the routers and on the local switches? if so, I would expect to see similar problems elsewhere. is it possible that there was a duplicate mac someplace in another part of the bridged network, one that was being picked up by STP and interpreted as a loop? You mention changing macs of interfaces as part of your experimentation. Are you certain that this process was not part of the solution? To be frank, I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason why the FE port on the router would go into blocking. I can see that hapening on the serial port for reasons that have been discussed on this group in the past. I can't come up with a rationale as to why hard setting of speed and duplex would make a difference. I suppose one MIGHT conclude that if the port is in full duplex, the STP process MIGHT see a loop occuring over the two different wire pairs. that's about the only wild rationale I can come up with. And that one is really stretching the point / bug / whatever. In any case, thanks for the good read. Chuck ""Ole Drews Jensen"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > After a fun evening last night, I have decided not to trust the autosensing > on ethernet interfaces anymore. > > I was at a branch office where the users could not access the corporate > network. The router, a 1720 setup as a bridge with the same IP address for > the FastEthernet as the Serial subinterface, both configured for > bridge-group 1. It was connected to a 2620 at the corporate office via a > Fractional Frame Relay connection. > > I changed the switch out with an old spare hub I had lying around, and > connected only one workstation from the local network. After starting the > router up, I could ping the local workstation, and I could ping devices on > the corporate network, so both my FastEthernet and Serial interfaces were > working fine. However, I could not ping anything on the corporate network > from my workstation, nor could I from a telnet connection to my corporate > router ping the workstation, so traffic was not being passed through between > the interfaces. > > That looked like a typical routing problem, but the only problem was that I > was not routing, I was bridging, so ? > > I did a "show bridge 1 group" and saw that the FastEthernet was in a > blocking state by the spanning tree, so something was wrong here. I cleared > the arp table on the router and on all other routers and switches. I tried > to assign a different mac address to the FE interface. I tried a different > workstation. No matter what I did, it kept being in a blocking state. > > I went in and did a "bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled" on the interface, and > it changed to forwarding state, but I could still not pass traffic through. > > This is when I called TAC, but after I guided them through to a telnet > connection to my routers, they decided after three hours that something > weird was going on with the router, and they did an RMA for a replacement > unit. > > However, I decided to continue my troubleshooting, because I hate to give > up. I reconfigured everything, I tried to create a bridge-group 2 instead, I > forced it into IP routing, and back off it again, but no matter what, it > kept going into blocking mode (I had removed the spanning-disabled command > again at that time). > > That's when it hit me to try and force the speed on the interface. It was in > AUTO, and my switch had been auto 10/100, but my hub was only 10. I changed > it from auto to 10 and power cycled the router. PLING!!! Now it started up > and after the listening and learning, it went in forwarding state, and I > could now ping through my router, and I could con
Re: simple ip monitor [7:30433]
Here is what we use and it is a low cost solution. http://www.tribecaexpress.com/ipswitch/whatsup.htm Marc Russell Network Learning, Inc. 1677 W. Hamlin Rochester Hills, MI 48309 Ph# 248-299-8114 www.ccbootcamp.com ""2387"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hello, I am looking for a simple program to monitor an ip and email me when > it > goes up or down. Can anyone recommend a very basic program like this? > thank you Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30435&t=30433 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Half Successfull ping [7:30449]
Kind of strange. What does debug ip packet give you. If you are running other IP data then use debug ip packet 101 with the access list below. That will make it easier to sort through the output. Have you tried slowing down the clock rate or switching which side is DCE? access-list 101 permit icmp any any. Marc Russell www.ccbootcamp.com ""McHugh Randy"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Anyone have an ideas on this half successfull ping across two directly > connect serial interfaces? Clock rate, encapsulation, controllers and cables > look OK. Address on R4 is 172.16.1.4/24 and R2 is 172.16.1.5/24 . Here is > the ping from R4 > R4#ping 172.16.1.5 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.5, timeout is 2 seconds: > .!.!. > Success rate is 40 percent (2/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 32/32/32 ms > > Same thing from R2 to R4 > R2#ping 172.16.1.4 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.4, timeout is 2 seconds: > !.!.! > Success rate is 60 percent (3/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 28/30/32 ms > Thanks > Randy Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30450&t=30449 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CIPT & EVVOD [7:30200]
Did you take either if the classes, EVODD or QoS? Carlton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CIPT & EVVOD [7:30200] I took them both. CIPT is easy, not very detailed and a Sylvain test. I had about 60 questions, not 125. EVODD and PBX Fundamentals are hard and are online and not fun. QOS is just as bad. ""Dave Luancing"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Has anyone taken the CIPT or EVVOD exams. I am having > a hard time finding information to study for the exam. > > I was wondering if the CIPT is very detailed or if it > is a more general test since it is 115 to 125 > questions. Did you feel you had enough time to take > the exam? > > - D.L. > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30463&t=30200 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Half Successfull ping [7:30449]
Feel like you are having 2 routes pointing on the same destination, through two diffrent interfaces. Have a look on the routing. Regards --- McHugh Randy wrote: > Anyone have an ideas on this half successfull ping across > two directly > connect serial interfaces? Clock rate, encapsulation, > controllers and cables > look OK. Address on R4 is 172.16.1.4/24 and R2 is > 172.16.1.5/24 . Here is > the ping from R4 > R4#ping 172.16.1.5 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.5, timeout is > 2 seconds: > .!.!. > Success rate is 40 percent (2/5), round-trip min/avg/max > = 32/32/32 ms > > Same thing from R2 to R4 > R2#ping 172.16.1.4 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.4, timeout is > 2 seconds: > !.!.! > Success rate is 60 percent (3/5), round-trip min/avg/max > = 28/30/32 ms > Thanks > Randy [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30464&t=30449 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446]
Chuck, At all three offices when I installed these 1720's, I at the same time installed some new LinkSYS 10/100 switches (the black and blue model). This worked (works) fine with the 1720 set to auto. However, when I replaced the switch, it was with a 3COM hub, and that one is a 10 mbps. I did remove the manual mac config from the FE again, so that was not part of the solution. If you have an old 3COM HUB TP16...(something - I cannot remember the exact model number), try to set your router in auto sense and connect the hub and see what happens. I guess this is one of these weird situations you come accros sometimes. But anyway, a speed problem should never cause the STP to go into blocking mode - those two things doesn't really have anything to do with each other. So, interesting.. Ole Ole Drews Jensen Systems Network Manager CCNP, MCSE, MCP+I RWR Enterprises, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.RouterChief.com NEED A JOB ??? http://www.oledrews.com/job -Original Message- From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 5:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446] An interesting read, particularly since I am reviewing Kennedy clark's cisco Lan Switching book prior to reviewing Cat5K and Cat 3920 configuration. I am somewhat surprised at both the phenomenon and the concludion. Spanning tree blocks for particular reasons. when you concluded that your configurations were identical at all offices, does that mean that your port negotiations were set to auto everywhere else? both on the routers and on the local switches? if so, I would expect to see similar problems elsewhere. is it possible that there was a duplicate mac someplace in another part of the bridged network, one that was being picked up by STP and interpreted as a loop? You mention changing macs of interfaces as part of your experimentation. Are you certain that this process was not part of the solution? To be frank, I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason why the FE port on the router would go into blocking. I can see that hapening on the serial port for reasons that have been discussed on this group in the past. I can't come up with a rationale as to why hard setting of speed and duplex would make a difference. I suppose one MIGHT conclude that if the port is in full duplex, the STP process MIGHT see a loop occuring over the two different wire pairs. that's about the only wild rationale I can come up with. And that one is really stretching the point / bug / whatever. In any case, thanks for the good read. Chuck ""Ole Drews Jensen"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > After a fun evening last night, I have decided not to trust the autosensing > on ethernet interfaces anymore. > > I was at a branch office where the users could not access the corporate > network. The router, a 1720 setup as a bridge with the same IP address for > the FastEthernet as the Serial subinterface, both configured for > bridge-group 1. It was connected to a 2620 at the corporate office via a > Fractional Frame Relay connection. > > I changed the switch out with an old spare hub I had lying around, and > connected only one workstation from the local network. After starting the > router up, I could ping the local workstation, and I could ping devices on > the corporate network, so both my FastEthernet and Serial interfaces were > working fine. However, I could not ping anything on the corporate network > from my workstation, nor could I from a telnet connection to my corporate > router ping the workstation, so traffic was not being passed through between > the interfaces. > > That looked like a typical routing problem, but the only problem was that I > was not routing, I was bridging, so ? > > I did a "show bridge 1 group" and saw that the FastEthernet was in a > blocking state by the spanning tree, so something was wrong here. I cleared > the arp table on the router and on all other routers and switches. I tried > to assign a different mac address to the FE interface. I tried a different > workstation. No matter what I did, it kept being in a blocking state. > > I went in and did a "bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled" on the interface, and > it changed to forwarding state, but I could still not pass traffic through. > > This is when I called TAC, but after I guided them through to a telnet > connection to my routers, they decided after three hours that something > weird was going on with the router, and they did an RMA for a replacement > unit. > > However, I decided to continue my troubleshooting, because I hate to give > up. I reconfigured everything, I tried to create a bridge-group 2 instead, I > forced it into IP routing, and back off it again, but no matter what, it > kept going into blocking mode (I had
RE: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446]
I always use 568B specs when making cables, except when making a crossed one, then it's A in one end and B in the other (green and orange switched). Wiring according to 568B should never cause a problem. I would look for a bad cable, connection, light fixtures close to the wire, etc... Ole Ole Drews Jensen Systems Network Manager CCNP, MCSE, MCP+I RWR Enterprises, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.RouterChief.com NEED A JOB ??? http://www.oledrews.com/job -Original Message- From: William Harrison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 9:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446] Chuck, Just a (me too.) to add to your commitments. I'm not familiar with the fact that a router (cisco?) actually ran span tree or perform ST cals. However I have seen an FE interface close down due to a wiring problem where an installer wired two rooms using 568B specs. This cause the router to be unable to negotiate the 10/100 connection between the clients! two cents Bill Harrison -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 5:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446] An interesting read, particularly since I am reviewing Kennedy clark's cisco Lan Switching book prior to reviewing Cat5K and Cat 3920 configuration. I am somewhat surprised at both the phenomenon and the concludion. Spanning tree blocks for particular reasons. when you concluded that your configurations were identical at all offices, does that mean that your port negotiations were set to auto everywhere else? both on the routers and on the local switches? if so, I would expect to see similar problems elsewhere. is it possible that there was a duplicate mac someplace in another part of the bridged network, one that was being picked up by STP and interpreted as a loop? You mention changing macs of interfaces as part of your experimentation. Are you certain that this process was not part of the solution? To be frank, I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason why the FE port on the router would go into blocking. I can see that hapening on the serial port for reasons that have been discussed on this group in the past. I can't come up with a rationale as to why hard setting of speed and duplex would make a difference. I suppose one MIGHT conclude that if the port is in full duplex, the STP process MIGHT see a loop occuring over the two different wire pairs. that's about the only wild rationale I can come up with. And that one is really stretching the point / bug / whatever. In any case, thanks for the good read. Chuck ""Ole Drews Jensen"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > After a fun evening last night, I have decided not to trust the autosensing > on ethernet interfaces anymore. > > I was at a branch office where the users could not access the corporate > network. The router, a 1720 setup as a bridge with the same IP address for > the FastEthernet as the Serial subinterface, both configured for > bridge-group 1. It was connected to a 2620 at the corporate office via a > Fractional Frame Relay connection. > > I changed the switch out with an old spare hub I had lying around, and > connected only one workstation from the local network. After starting the > router up, I could ping the local workstation, and I could ping devices on > the corporate network, so both my FastEthernet and Serial interfaces were > working fine. However, I could not ping anything on the corporate network > from my workstation, nor could I from a telnet connection to my corporate > router ping the workstation, so traffic was not being passed through between > the interfaces. > > That looked like a typical routing problem, but the only problem was that I > was not routing, I was bridging, so ? > > I did a "show bridge 1 group" and saw that the FastEthernet was in a > blocking state by the spanning tree, so something was wrong here. I cleared > the arp table on the router and on all other routers and switches. I tried > to assign a different mac address to the FE interface. I tried a different > workstation. No matter what I did, it kept being in a blocking state. > > I went in and did a "bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled" on the interface, and > it changed to forwarding state, but I could still not pass traffic through. > > This is when I called TAC, but after I guided them through to a telnet > connection to my routers, they decided after three hours that something > weird was going on with the router, and they did an RMA for a replacement > unit. > > However, I decided to continue my troubleshooting, because I hate to give > up. I reconfigured everything, I tried to create a bridge-group 2 instead, I > forced it into
Re: Half Successfull ping [7:30449]
You are most likely load balancing across multiple interfaces and the packets are not there or back. Either way it is an issue with the way you are routing. McHugh Randy wrote: > Anyone have an ideas on this half successfull ping across two directly > connect serial interfaces? Clock rate, encapsulation, controllers and cables > look OK. Address on R4 is 172.16.1.4/24 and R2 is 172.16.1.5/24 . Here is > the ping from R4 > R4#ping 172.16.1.5 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.5, timeout is 2 seconds: > .!.!. > Success rate is 40 percent (2/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 32/32/32 ms > > Same thing from R2 to R4 > R2#ping 172.16.1.4 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.16.1.4, timeout is 2 seconds: > !.!.! > Success rate is 60 percent (3/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 28/30/32 ms > Thanks > Randy Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30467&t=30449 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446]
It's been more than once when I've encountered autonegotiation/autosense issues between a Cisco router and Cisco switch. I've even seen problems when both interfaces were 10/100 and both hard-coded to 100/full and the link wouldn't come up. This may a chink in the Cisco armor as I rarely encounter issues with autonegotiation/autosense with other equipment but when I install a new Cisco network, one thing I ALWAYS have to do is go through the 10/100 ports of every switch and look for duplex (and sometimes speed) mismatches. Crazy... Rik -Original Message- From: Kane, Christopher A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 11:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446] It's unfortunate that sometimes when things break, they don't perform in expected ways. Rather it truly was an Autosense problem or not, who knows. But it brings up a chance to talk about Autosense. I've had it bite me more than once. I've had problems with Autosense that didn't show up until months after installation. It doesn't matter if its Cisco to Cisco or Cisco to another vendor, I've had to lock down ports at certain speeds and modes to solve problems on several occasions. Just to pass along some experience, you may always be better off hard setting your options. Nice persistence Mr. Jensen, it's cool to stick with something until you can make it work. Chris -Original Message- From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 6:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Autosense this ... (add to your knowledgebase) [7:30446] An interesting read, particularly since I am reviewing Kennedy clark's cisco Lan Switching book prior to reviewing Cat5K and Cat 3920 configuration. I am somewhat surprised at both the phenomenon and the concludion. Spanning tree blocks for particular reasons. when you concluded that your configurations were identical at all offices, does that mean that your port negotiations were set to auto everywhere else? both on the routers and on the local switches? if so, I would expect to see similar problems elsewhere. is it possible that there was a duplicate mac someplace in another part of the bridged network, one that was being picked up by STP and interpreted as a loop? You mention changing macs of interfaces as part of your experimentation. Are you certain that this process was not part of the solution? To be frank, I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason why the FE port on the router would go into blocking. I can see that hapening on the serial port for reasons that have been discussed on this group in the past. I can't come up with a rationale as to why hard setting of speed and duplex would make a difference. I suppose one MIGHT conclude that if the port is in full duplex, the STP process MIGHT see a loop occuring over the two different wire pairs. that's about the only wild rationale I can come up with. And that one is really stretching the point / bug / whatever. In any case, thanks for the good read. Chuck ""Ole Drews Jensen"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > After a fun evening last night, I have decided not to trust the autosensing > on ethernet interfaces anymore. > > I was at a branch office where the users could not access the > corporate network. The router, a 1720 setup as a bridge with the same > IP address for the FastEthernet as the Serial subinterface, both > configured for bridge-group 1. It was connected to a 2620 at the > corporate office via a Fractional Frame Relay connection. > > I changed the switch out with an old spare hub I had lying around, and > connected only one workstation from the local network. After starting > the router up, I could ping the local workstation, and I could ping > devices on the corporate network, so both my FastEthernet and Serial > interfaces were working fine. However, I could not ping anything on > the corporate network from my workstation, nor could I from a telnet > connection to my corporate router ping the workstation, so traffic was > not being passed through between > the interfaces. > > That looked like a typical routing problem, but the only problem was > that I > was not routing, I was bridging, so ? > > I did a "show bridge 1 group" and saw that the FastEthernet was in a > blocking state by the spanning tree, so something was wrong here. I cleared > the arp table on the router and on all other routers and switches. I > tried to assign a different mac address to the FE interface. I tried a > different workstation. No matter what I did, it kept being in a > blocking state. > > I went in and did a "bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled" on the > interface, and > it changed to forwarding state, but I could still not pass traffic through. > > This is when I called TAC, but after I guided them through to a telnet > connection to my routers, they decided after three hours t
Re: can't ping an address from anywhere but the ro [7:30469]
You mentioned DSL so I assume this is an Internet connection. The address space you have chosen for your internal network "192.168.0.x" is part of RFC 1918 which is non-routable on the Internet. Your choice for your internal address space is fine, however, you need to use NAT (network address translation) to convert your internal IP addresses to external ones that are known by your ISP. Look on www.cisco.com for sample NAT configs and you will get the idea. Marc Russell www.ccbootcamp.com ""John Mairs"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi, > > I have DSL with a static IP address/24. the gateway > address is x.x.x.254 and the static IP/24 address that > I have assigned the router is x.x.x.238. for fun I > assigned x.x.x.230 to my printer. > > all addresses on the inside network are > 192.168.0.x/24. > > I can ping x.x.x.238 and x.x.x.230 but not x.x.x.254 > from the inside network. > > I can ping x.x.x.254 from the router (2501 with > secondary ethernet) > > I can't understand why the router will route to the > printer (x.x.x.230) but not the gateway (x.x.x.254) > > I am confused about my router's prejudicial ways. > > any thoughts > > = > John L. Mairs > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30469&t=30469 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why use wildcard mask [7:30473]
Hi All, I am trying to find out why we do an inverse/wildcard masks while using access lists? For example, if I want to deny 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 network, on the access list, we configure this as 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255, but why do we do it this way instead of 255.255.255.0. All this seems to be is just an inverse relationship pointing back at the same thing? Even if I want to get specific and deny 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.192, this translates to 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.63, which seems to be just the standard mask and subtract 255.255.255.255. Is there a specific reason why we do inverse mask? It seems to be easier just to configure it with normal masks. This way, we skip on an extra procedure. thanks Mike Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30473&t=30473 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
