RE: CCNA 640-607 [7:44226]
I just took CCNA 640-607. The simulator is kind of like the Sybex CCNA Virtual Lab e-trainer / simulator. Pretty straight forward. I agree, hands-on would help. Sam Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44296&t=44226 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Securing a Aironet 350 [7:44152]
What is the best way to secure a Aironet 350 from hackers? ***Keep it unplugged. ***Seriously though, LEAP is a good option if you want ease of use and pretty good security. It can be brute-forced if there isn't a user lock-out policy though. (You also need a Cisco ACS server or LEAP-compatible RADIUS server available.) The Cisco safe whitepaper mentioned earlier is an excellent reference. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44295&t=44152 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCIE Number [7:44294]
What's the latest number given out??? And what is the beginning (original) number or best estimate??? From what I have heard they started somewhere between 1000 and 2000. Thanks for any info!!! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44294&t=44294 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCIE LAB [7:44293]
Does anybody know that CCIE EXAM will be changed? Somebody said that if one wants to join CCIE EXAM,he must pass CCNP and CCIP exam first from this July.Is it true???!!!If you know pls answer me,thank u! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44293&t=44293 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CCNA 640-607 [7:44226]
Hi Ron, Yes, exactly. It's more or less the same except for the two router simulator questions - make sure to grab some hands-on practice. :) Cheers, Ron --- Ron Steedman CCNP, CCNA, MCP, BS Computer Science Free CCNA Practice Tests, Study Guides, & Message Boards! http://www.congonetworking.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44289&t=44226 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CERTIFICATION STATISTICS [7:44078]
Hi Roger, The full statistics are only available to Cisco trainers and others under NDA. Cisco only publically publishes two statistics: (1) There are 7,598 CCIEs. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/ccie_program/ccie_present.html (2) There are just over 300,000 Cisco certification holders. http://ciscocert.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/ciscocert.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=ygAMK7fg&p_lva=&p_faqid=63&p_created=1002842873&p_sp=cF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTEzOCZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li= Cheers, Ron --- Ron Steedman CCNP, CCNA, MCP, BS Computer Science Free CCNA Practice Tests, Study Guides, & Message Boards! http://www.congonetworking.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44291&t=44078 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: HSRP MAC address [7:44290]
Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44292&t=44290 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HSRP MAC address [7:44290]
The HSRP has a virtual IP address and MAC address. Can somebody tell me how the MAC address been chosen. Is that random? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44290&t=44290 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Router boot process [7:44288]
Hi, If the router is configued to boot from flash. and the boot file corrupted. Will the router boot from network then to ROM? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44288&t=44288 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VTP Concentrator - client to client [7:44276]
Gaz, I think there might be some routing problems. IPSEC is not like a serial link, it will not pass all traffic, it only passed traffic from one endpoint of the tunnel to the other endpoint of the tunnel. In your scenario, once the packet gets to the concentrator, the concentrator wouldn't know how to pass the packet off to the other client. The issue is probably really the transient nature of the dial up sessions. Imagine two clients running on DSL, then I can see them communicate to each other through the concentrator. They just need static routes in between them. Any comments? Alex Gaz wrote: > > Hi all > > Someone was banding this question around at work today, so > although it's > possibly a little off topic, I don't feel too guilty because I > don't need > the answer, just interested. > > If two clients each access a network via the internet in to one > VPN > concentrator, is it possible in any way to let the two separate > clients also > access each other's networks? > > We had a few off the cuff ideas, but nothing that would seem to > be a go'er. > Things like running overlapping NAT on an internal router with > two > interfaces. > > Anybody got any mad ideas, or possibly any sane ones? > > Gaz > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44287&t=44276 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CCIE LAB Costs [7:44284]
How much does the CCIE Lab Exam cost? The CCIE Lab Exam costs $1250.00 (U.S. Dollars) per candidate, per attempt. Please note that rates may vary due to currency exchange and local taxes. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/exam_preparation/lab.html -Original Message- From: Mark Godfrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 5:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CCIE LAB Costs [7:44284] Anyone know how much the CCIE LAB currenty cost? I know they changed it from two days to one but did the cost also go down? Thanks for the input. Mark Godfrey Network Engineer Road Runner High Speed Online Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44286&t=44284 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE- I WILL BE [7:43969]
And I've worked in many places where the janitorial staff isn't allowed
access to the datacenter / comm closets. It was strictly up to the IT
staff to keep the place clean.
Having a low tolerance for unpleasant looking curly hairballs on the floor,
I was generally the one using the broom even though I was, in most every
case, a project consultant. :-)
Craig
At 04:49 PM 5/14/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>hahahahahaha
>
>you know, in many places, the janitorial staff will refuse to even open the
>door to a comms room, knowing they get blamed for anything bad that happens.
>I've always kept a broom handy for those little chores
>
>""Gaz"" wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > How about this one:
> >
> > We used to provide troubleshooting support for a forces network which
> > included some large sites and a few very minor (one or two user) sites.
> > There had been problems with one of these small sites intermittently for
a
> > few weeks, but things got worse until it was dropping three or 4 times
per
> > day.
> >
> > The router seemed to be rebooting every time there was a problem. We
found
> > no relevant bugs, and though the site wasn't on UPS, site services didn't
> > believe there was any problem with power and assured us that the power to
> > the cabinet was an unswitched fused spur.
> > We initially upgraded the image and then swapped the router out, leaving
>the
> > old router in the cabinet powered up as well, but not connected.
> > The new router rebooted as well, and when we went back to site with the
> > intention of putting a small UPS in the cabinet, the old router had
>rebooted
> > at exactly the same time, which seemed to support our idea.
> > The previous 2 times on site I had just carried out the work and left.
>This
> > time I accepted the offer of a coffee while I fitted the UPS in.
> > All of a sudden the power went off to the whole cabinet.
> > What a relief. What a laugh. Next to the kettle in the room next door was
>a
> > double socket, one of them labelled "Do not unplug", the other connected
>to
> > a radio. The cable ran through trunking, and through the wall, then
>trunking
> > all the way around the room to the comms cabinet.
> > Experience had taught the caretaker that nothing seemed to go wrong when
>the
> > plug was taken out, but he always plugged it back in just in case. It was
> > either that or his radio.
> >
> > Doh!
> >
> > Gaz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > While
> > ""Chuck"" wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > my favorite story was the company whose network went down every morning
> > for
> > > a few minutes just about the time the work force was sitting down,
>turning
> > > on their PC's, and getting ready for the day. Now the obvious
conclusion
> > is
> > > "it's just busy that time of day" Except that it didn't necessarily
>happen
> > > every day.
> > >
> > > To make a long story short, a couple of power users had decided they
> > needed
> > > more data jacks in their area, had purchased some switch or other at
one
> > of
> > > the chain stores, and dual homed it into the LAN infrastructure. Being
> > > conservation conscious folks, they powered down all their equipment
when
> > > they went home for the day, and turned it on every morning when they
>came
> > > in.
> > >
> > > the result was a campus wide spanning tree recalculation every time
they
> > > brought their switch on line.
> > >
> > > I forget how the customer told me this was discovered.
> > >
> > >
> > > ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > And add to that cranky users who are entirely dependent on the
network
> > but
> > > > won't tell you the whole story when reporting problems. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Priscilla
> > > >
> > > > At 09:52 PM 5/12/02, Michael L. Williams wrote:
> > > > >"Larry Letterman" wrote in message
> > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > A 40 router lab is nice, but its not the same as troubleshooting
a
> > > > > > production network with 20,000 + users at multiple sites.
> > > > >
> > > > >Here here and to add to that. "... a production network
with
> > > > >20,000+ users at multiple sites..." running a variety of
>multiprotocol,
> > > > >quirky, sometimes custom-written (read: homemade) applications that
>are
> > > > >trying to do whatever on the network coupled with devices from
> > > whatever
> > > > >manufacturers that don't play nice ("oh, you need this device in
it's
> > own
> > > > >VLAN because broadcast traffic makes it crash"), etc, etc
> > > > >
> > > > >Mike W.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > > > http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44285&t=43969
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Repo
CCIE LAB Costs [7:44284]
Anyone know how much the CCIE LAB currenty cost? I know they changed it from two days to one but did the cost also go down? Thanks for the input. Mark Godfrey Network Engineer Road Runner High Speed Online Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44284&t=44284 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PVCs vs. SVCs - puzzling me. [7:44117]
Kevin, Packet Switching is a networking method in which nodes share bandwidth with each other by sending packets and Circuit Switching is when a dedicated physical circuit path must exist between sender and receiver for the duration of the "call." There is a link I use in my class that tends to help my students understand Packet Switching. I hope it helps a little. http://www.rad.com/networks/1998/packet/sim.htm -- Steven S. Minnick CCNP/CCDP/CCAI/EE [EMAIL PROTECTED] ""Kevin Jones"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I was wondering if someone would be willing to clarify something regarding > PVC's > and SVC's (in X.25/FrameRelay/ATM). Some books and material I've read > discuss the difference between the two as follows: > > PVC's - Pre-established connection and path through the switched network. > Every packet takes the same path to reach its destination. > > SVC's - Dynamically established connection and path through the switched > network Again, every packet takes the same path to reach its destination. > > However, I have also read that packets do not necessarily take the same path > through the switched network. If that is the case, are the pre-established > and dynamic connections to which they are refering between the router and > the first switch? > > I appreciate your help. Thank you. > > Kevin Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44282&t=44117 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco 12.2 IOS Image Numbering [7:44267]
John, you pays your money, you takes your chances. it could be worse. suppose Cisco took the Microsoft approach. The first Windows NT was NT 3.1 ( to synch the name with the current desktop OS of Windows 3.1. But the next windows desktop release was Windows 3.11 while the next NT was 3.51 Then there was Windows 95, but NT 4.0 then came the service packs. try to keep those suckers straight! Now it is Windows 2K with various sub-names and Windows XP with the same problem. Do I buy the Professional, the Desktop, or the Fool on the Hill release? Hey, how about a contest - let's provide Cisco with some snappy names for their various IOS releases. Like IOS Yakkity Yak for the VoIP versions and IOS In the Money for the ATM versions ( bad joke ) Or maybe Cisco should take my advice - One IOS to forward them all One IOS to find them One IOS to summarize them all And in the routing tables bind them. think if that were true - what size flash and dram would you need? Back to work. Got a customer to call. ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Is anyone else concerned about the numbering scheme so far? :-) They > seem to just skip several major releases to try to get their numbering > system synchronized but it also has the subtle effect of making us think > they're progressing further than they really are. > > For example, I see today that 12.2(10) is out. What was the previous > release? 12.2(9)? Nope. 12.2(7) !! > > It's even worse in the T releases. They skipped from 12.2(4)T to > 12.2(8)T. This is nuts! > > I took a look at the open caveats for 12.2(10) and was quite surprised > at what I found. Keep in mind that they're only listing the severity 1 > and 2 caveats plus a few select severity 3 caveats. With my browser > window fully open, I had to hit 81 times to get through the > list! That's eighty one pages of known bugs, and only the worst of the > bunch, not a complete list. > > It scares me sometimes what I'm willing to put on our routers here at > work. On one of our main routers I'm running 12.2(3) but that's only > because it seems to be fairly stable in our environment and I'm afraid > to upgrade.We can't downgrade because I need a couple of the > features. Definitely a precarious situation. > > Okay, time to get some more coffee. I'm rambling. Perhaps I should > attempt to argue that IGRP is a path vector protocol. Or perhaps ponder > over tunneling token ring over encrypted HSRP tunnels. > > Regards, > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44283&t=44267 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ARP problems, anyone? [7:44108]
Thank you everyone for the feedback. Although configuring the default gateway on PC2 with its own IP address allowed me to ping from PC1 to PC2, it caused some other problems in a part of the network that I omitted, so I had to re-configure it back without a default gateway. Let me re-draw the diagram to include the omitted part: |---Private Network| --Public Network--| e0 e1 e0 e1 e0 e1 e0 e1 PC1---routerArouterB-PC2-routerC-Internet So, basically PC2 is a server with interfaces in a public and a private network. Router A and router B connect an office to the hosting center via a T1 line, that's why we need the router. Otherwise, there is no need for the router on the private interface, since they can communicate via NetBIOS names without any security concerns. What happened when I configured PC2 with it's own IP on the default gateway was that the public interface stopped responding away (Windows 2000 server). When I configure the default GW as routerB's address, the same thing happen but is sporadic and only starts after a week or so. Weird! As far as setting a default route, I don't think this will work on Windows 2000 unless it is acting as a router itself. -Henrique Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44281&t=44108 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco Certification Digest V2 #2077 (Vacation) [7:44280]
I will be on vacation from 5-7-02 to 5-22-02. Any matter regarding network management please forward to Bob Taylor @ 213-979-0032. Thanks. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44280&t=44280 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ARP problems, anyone? [7:44108]
diagram re-sent: |---Private Network| --Public Network--| e0 e1 e0 e1 e0 e1 e0 e1 PC1---routerArouterB-PC2-routerC-Internet Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44279&t=44108 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VLAN managment domain IP Addressing... [7:44255]
Yes you can do this but what you probably forgot to do was shutdown interface vlan 1. Until you shutdown vlan 1 the other vlan you created will not come up. Dave Jeff Harris wrote: > > Does anyone know if you can use a VLAN interface for management on an > IOS-based switch if said VLAN was learned via VTP? I was unable to set it up > that way awhile back. I have ran into this awhile back and never did get to > troubleshoot it. > > The switch in question was a 3524XL. The VTP server was a 2948G. All the > vlans showed up just fine. I could make ports members of them on the 3524. > > Jeff > > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 02:59:23PM -0400, Darren S Crawford wrote: > > SC0 can be placed in any VLAN you specify. All ports default to VLAN 1 so > > putting it there may not be prudent depending on your specific security > > needs. For example, I have used VLAN 999 in DMZs before as the "managment > > rail" for the switches. > > > > HTH > > > > Darren > > > > At 02:13 PM 5/14/2002 -0400, Chris Charlebois wrote: > > >If you are using a set-based switch, I beleive the SC0 interface belongs > to > > >VLAN 1 by default. I'm not even sure you can change that. > > > > > >On IOS-based switches, use the VLAN virtual interface: > > >Switch1(conf)#interface vlan1 > > >Switch1(conf-if)#ip address w.x.y.z 255.255.255.0 > > > > > >You can create virtual interfaces for any and all vlans, so the switch can > > >be accessed from multiple ip addresses, but the switch will not route > > >between vlans (obviously). > > x$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$: > > Lucent Technologies - Enhanced Services & Sales > > NetworkCare Professional Services > > http//www.lucent.com/netcare/ > > Darren S. Crawford - CCNP, CCDP, CISSP > > > > Distinguished Member of the Consulting Staff > > > > Northwest Region - Sacramento Office > > Voicemail (916) 859-5200 x310 > > Pager (800) 467-1467 > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > x$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$: > > > > Every Job is a Self-Portrait of the person Who Did It > > Autograph Your Work With EXCELLENCE! -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44278&t=44255 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE- I WILL BE [7:43969]
hahahahahaha
you know, in many places, the janitorial staff will refuse to even open the
door to a comms room, knowing they get blamed for anything bad that happens.
I've always kept a broom handy for those little chores
""Gaz"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How about this one:
>
> We used to provide troubleshooting support for a forces network which
> included some large sites and a few very minor (one or two user) sites.
> There had been problems with one of these small sites intermittently for a
> few weeks, but things got worse until it was dropping three or 4 times per
> day.
>
> The router seemed to be rebooting every time there was a problem. We found
> no relevant bugs, and though the site wasn't on UPS, site services didn't
> believe there was any problem with power and assured us that the power to
> the cabinet was an unswitched fused spur.
> We initially upgraded the image and then swapped the router out, leaving
the
> old router in the cabinet powered up as well, but not connected.
> The new router rebooted as well, and when we went back to site with the
> intention of putting a small UPS in the cabinet, the old router had
rebooted
> at exactly the same time, which seemed to support our idea.
> The previous 2 times on site I had just carried out the work and left.
This
> time I accepted the offer of a coffee while I fitted the UPS in.
> All of a sudden the power went off to the whole cabinet.
> What a relief. What a laugh. Next to the kettle in the room next door was
a
> double socket, one of them labelled "Do not unplug", the other connected
to
> a radio. The cable ran through trunking, and through the wall, then
trunking
> all the way around the room to the comms cabinet.
> Experience had taught the caretaker that nothing seemed to go wrong when
the
> plug was taken out, but he always plugged it back in just in case. It was
> either that or his radio.
>
> Doh!
>
> Gaz
>
>
>
>
> While
> ""Chuck"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > my favorite story was the company whose network went down every morning
> for
> > a few minutes just about the time the work force was sitting down,
turning
> > on their PC's, and getting ready for the day. Now the obvious conclusion
> is
> > "it's just busy that time of day" Except that it didn't necessarily
happen
> > every day.
> >
> > To make a long story short, a couple of power users had decided they
> needed
> > more data jacks in their area, had purchased some switch or other at one
> of
> > the chain stores, and dual homed it into the LAN infrastructure. Being
> > conservation conscious folks, they powered down all their equipment when
> > they went home for the day, and turned it on every morning when they
came
> > in.
> >
> > the result was a campus wide spanning tree recalculation every time they
> > brought their switch on line.
> >
> > I forget how the customer told me this was discovered.
> >
> >
> > ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > And add to that cranky users who are entirely dependent on the network
> but
> > > won't tell you the whole story when reporting problems. ;-)
> > >
> > > Priscilla
> > >
> > > At 09:52 PM 5/12/02, Michael L. Williams wrote:
> > > >"Larry Letterman" wrote in message
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > A 40 router lab is nice, but its not the same as troubleshooting a
> > > > > production network with 20,000 + users at multiple sites.
> > > >
> > > >Here here and to add to that. "... a production network with
> > > >20,000+ users at multiple sites..." running a variety of
multiprotocol,
> > > >quirky, sometimes custom-written (read: homemade) applications that
are
> > > >trying to do whatever on the network coupled with devices from
> > whatever
> > > >manufacturers that don't play nice ("oh, you need this device in it's
> own
> > > >VLAN because broadcast traffic makes it crash"), etc, etc
> > > >
> > > >Mike W.
> > >
> > >
> > > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > > http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44277&t=43969
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VTP Concentrator - client to client [7:44276]
Hi all Someone was banding this question around at work today, so although it's possibly a little off topic, I don't feel too guilty because I don't need the answer, just interested. If two clients each access a network via the internet in to one VPN concentrator, is it possible in any way to let the two separate clients also access each other's networks? We had a few off the cuff ideas, but nothing that would seem to be a go'er. Things like running overlapping NAT on an internal router with two interfaces. Anybody got any mad ideas, or possibly any sane ones? Gaz Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44276&t=44276 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco 12.2 IOS Image Numbering [7:44267]
I think what happens is releases are scheduled every two weeks or so for various bug fixes and new hardware/features in the T train. Periodically or maybe all to often of late a problem is found before a scheduled release that is so onerous that it's thrown in the bit bucket and never sees the light of day. This is only an observation/educated guess, I'm sure someone on this list knows more, Larry Dave John Neiberger wrote: > > Is anyone else concerned about the numbering scheme so far? :-) They > seem to just skip several major releases to try to get their numbering > system synchronized but it also has the subtle effect of making us think > they're progressing further than they really are. > > For example, I see today that 12.2(10) is out. What was the previous > release? 12.2(9)? Nope. 12.2(7) !! > > It's even worse in the T releases. They skipped from 12.2(4)T to > 12.2(8)T. This is nuts! > > I took a look at the open caveats for 12.2(10) and was quite surprised > at what I found. Keep in mind that they're only listing the severity 1 > and 2 caveats plus a few select severity 3 caveats. With my browser > window fully open, I had to hit 81 times to get through the > list! That's eighty one pages of known bugs, and only the worst of the > bunch, not a complete list. > > It scares me sometimes what I'm willing to put on our routers here at > work. On one of our main routers I'm running 12.2(3) but that's only > because it seems to be fairly stable in our environment and I'm afraid > to upgrade.We can't downgrade because I need a couple of the > features. Definitely a precarious situation. > > Okay, time to get some more coffee. I'm rambling. Perhaps I should > attempt to argue that IGRP is a path vector protocol. Or perhaps ponder > over tunneling token ring over encrypted HSRP tunnels. > > Regards, > John -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44274&t=44267 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Difference "spantree root" vs spantree priority" [7:44275]
Hi group, I had the following additional questions may be some one can answer or has experience with: So if I have several switches and I want switch A to be the root of VLAN 5 would the command "set spantree 5" on switch A make it the root. What if switch Z is added to the network, is there a chance that this switch under the right circumstances will become the root. I guess what I am trying to ask is how can I make sure that switch A will always stay the root bridge for VLAN 5. Also related to above, once I run "set spantree root 5" will spanning tree protocol re-initialize and all the ports will go thru the different states of spanning tree. I am worried about all the servers and workstations that are connected to this switch. Will I need to reboot them. I hope I don't sound confusing, I am just trying to find the best way to do this at work. > ""JohnZ"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hi group, I am try to figure out what is the difference between the > > following two commands: > > > > set spantree root 5 > > set spantree priority 0 5 > > > > Do both of them provide the same results: set vlan 5 as the root bridge. > > > > Thanks. > > JZ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44275&t=44275 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade IOS on 2504, Please assist [7:44135]
Hi Follow this steps : I have done it today for a customer its faster than xmodem FIRST MALE A BACK UP OF YOUR CURRENT IOS FILE WITH TFTP SERVER THEN DO : 1. config terminal 2. (config)config-register 0x2101 3. reload 4. copy tftp flash 5. address of tftp server 6. name of the file to be copied 7. destination name , witch is the same 8. config terminal 9. config-register 0x2102 10. reload 11.enjoy ;) I found it at Cisco manual ( u can download it from Cisco too) Joupin www.joupin.com ""Kris Keen"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Guys > > Ive got a 2504 here, I understand ios upgrades are done with the Con using > XMODEM? Ive got 10.2 IOS on this router, what is required? I cant find jack > on CCO > > Cheers Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44273&t=44135 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Change of e-mail address [7:44271]
Hi my e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] will no longer be valid Please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] Almazi M. Rashid [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of Almazi M. Rashid.vcf] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44271&t=44271 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VLAN managment domain IP Addressing... [7:44255]
Does anyone know if you can use a VLAN interface for management on an IOS-based switch if said VLAN was learned via VTP? I was unable to set it up that way awhile back. I have ran into this awhile back and never did get to troubleshoot it. The switch in question was a 3524XL. The VTP server was a 2948G. All the vlans showed up just fine. I could make ports members of them on the 3524. Jeff On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 02:59:23PM -0400, Darren S Crawford wrote: > SC0 can be placed in any VLAN you specify. All ports default to VLAN 1 so > putting it there may not be prudent depending on your specific security > needs. For example, I have used VLAN 999 in DMZs before as the "managment > rail" for the switches. > > HTH > > Darren > > At 02:13 PM 5/14/2002 -0400, Chris Charlebois wrote: > >If you are using a set-based switch, I beleive the SC0 interface belongs to > >VLAN 1 by default. I'm not even sure you can change that. > > > >On IOS-based switches, use the VLAN virtual interface: > >Switch1(conf)#interface vlan1 > >Switch1(conf-if)#ip address w.x.y.z 255.255.255.0 > > > >You can create virtual interfaces for any and all vlans, so the switch can > >be accessed from multiple ip addresses, but the switch will not route > >between vlans (obviously). > x$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$: > Lucent Technologies - Enhanced Services & Sales > NetworkCare Professional Services > http//www.lucent.com/netcare/ > Darren S. Crawford - CCNP, CCDP, CISSP > > Distinguished Member of the Consulting Staff > > Northwest Region - Sacramento Office > Voicemail (916) 859-5200 x310 > Pager (800) 467-1467 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > x$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$: > > Every Job is a Self-Portrait of the person Who Did It > Autograph Your Work With EXCELLENCE! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44272&t=44255 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE- I WILL BE [7:43969]
How about this one:
We used to provide troubleshooting support for a forces network which
included some large sites and a few very minor (one or two user) sites.
There had been problems with one of these small sites intermittently for a
few weeks, but things got worse until it was dropping three or 4 times per
day.
The router seemed to be rebooting every time there was a problem. We found
no relevant bugs, and though the site wasn't on UPS, site services didn't
believe there was any problem with power and assured us that the power to
the cabinet was an unswitched fused spur.
We initially upgraded the image and then swapped the router out, leaving the
old router in the cabinet powered up as well, but not connected.
The new router rebooted as well, and when we went back to site with the
intention of putting a small UPS in the cabinet, the old router had rebooted
at exactly the same time, which seemed to support our idea.
The previous 2 times on site I had just carried out the work and left. This
time I accepted the offer of a coffee while I fitted the UPS in.
All of a sudden the power went off to the whole cabinet.
What a relief. What a laugh. Next to the kettle in the room next door was a
double socket, one of them labelled "Do not unplug", the other connected to
a radio. The cable ran through trunking, and through the wall, then trunking
all the way around the room to the comms cabinet.
Experience had taught the caretaker that nothing seemed to go wrong when the
plug was taken out, but he always plugged it back in just in case. It was
either that or his radio.
Doh!
Gaz
While
""Chuck"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> my favorite story was the company whose network went down every morning
for
> a few minutes just about the time the work force was sitting down, turning
> on their PC's, and getting ready for the day. Now the obvious conclusion
is
> "it's just busy that time of day" Except that it didn't necessarily happen
> every day.
>
> To make a long story short, a couple of power users had decided they
needed
> more data jacks in their area, had purchased some switch or other at one
of
> the chain stores, and dual homed it into the LAN infrastructure. Being
> conservation conscious folks, they powered down all their equipment when
> they went home for the day, and turned it on every morning when they came
> in.
>
> the result was a campus wide spanning tree recalculation every time they
> brought their switch on line.
>
> I forget how the customer told me this was discovered.
>
>
> ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And add to that cranky users who are entirely dependent on the network
but
> > won't tell you the whole story when reporting problems. ;-)
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> > At 09:52 PM 5/12/02, Michael L. Williams wrote:
> > >"Larry Letterman" wrote in message
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > A 40 router lab is nice, but its not the same as troubleshooting a
> > > > production network with 20,000 + users at multiple sites.
> > >
> > >Here here and to add to that. "... a production network with
> > >20,000+ users at multiple sites..." running a variety of multiprotocol,
> > >quirky, sometimes custom-written (read: homemade) applications that are
> > >trying to do whatever on the network coupled with devices from
> whatever
> > >manufacturers that don't play nice ("oh, you need this device in it's
own
> > >VLAN because broadcast traffic makes it crash"), etc, etc
> > >
> > >Mike W.
> >
> >
> > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44270&t=43969
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: bit time [7:44144]
For 16Mb Token Ring that would lead to 1 bit per 62.5 nanoseconds. I.e. one bit-time is 62.5 nanoseconds. Rgds, Remmert >From: "Pierre-Alex Guanel" >To: "C restion" , >Subject: RE: bit time [7:44144] >Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 09:47:44 -0500 > >Thank you Remmert. Can I assume that with a 16 Mb Token ring a bit time >would be 16 bits per seconds? > >Pierre-Alex > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of C >restion >Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:32 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: bit time [7:44144] > > >Hi Pierre, > >A bit-time is the time it takes to send a bit. > >For 10Mb Ethernet a bit-time is a 100 nanoseconds (10 Megabit per second, >so >1 bit per 100 nanoseconds), for Fast Ethernet it is 10 nanoseconds and so >on. > >So if a workstation on a Fast Ethernet network were to wait 5 bit-times, it >actually waits 50 nanoseconds. > >Hth, >Remmert _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44269&t=44144 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Slow Links. [7:44141]
Hi Murali, With Etherpeek you can only examine the ethernet sides of your connection (which in this case should probably enough since the problem seems to be on the Ethernet-segment between router C and the Win98 client). As far as I'm aware you can only sniff serial links with a professional package like Sniffer Pro. Should anybody know of a freeware tool, let me know. Hth, Crestion >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Slow Links. [7:44141] >Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:20:33 +0400 > >Hi.. > >I have a small improvement on the problem.. now this is what i did.. on rtr >C i put access-lists such that only reqd data passes through.. and this >resulted in clients logging without any problems.. also the users there >said >that after this was put the client part of this foxpro based application >would not display errors of no connection or connection timing out.. all >that i could see was there was a lot of activity on the RTR 805. > >Can this be due to excessive broadcast of the netbios ?? that >helper-address >has opened the ports for..? if so which ports and protocols to permit. > >i want to remove the access-list since 805 is really a small router to do >too much of packet processing.. > >i would like to know if i am going in the right direction. > >Crestion --thanks for the mail.. i shall do that and let me see what it has >to say ? > >can Etherpeek monitor serial links across on router ? > >thanks, >Murali > > > >-Original Message- >From: C restion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 3:39 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Slow Links. [7:44141] > > >Hi Murali, > >This definitely is a strange problem. I would advise to put sniffers on >both >ends of the connection (so one between the NT Server and Router A and one >between router C and the Win98 client), try to logon and than watch the >packet flow for any anomalies. Especially keep an eye on the 'delta time' >column and watch for a sudden increase in time. This usually points to >where >the connection gets 'stuck' and will help you pinpoint the problem. > >If your company doesn't have professional sniffers, you could probably get >the same result with one of the freeware sniffers (Etherpeek, etherreal). > >Hth, >Crestion _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44268&t=44141 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cisco 12.2 IOS Image Numbering [7:44267]
Is anyone else concerned about the numbering scheme so far? :-) They seem to just skip several major releases to try to get their numbering system synchronized but it also has the subtle effect of making us think they're progressing further than they really are. For example, I see today that 12.2(10) is out. What was the previous release? 12.2(9)? Nope. 12.2(7) !! It's even worse in the T releases. They skipped from 12.2(4)T to 12.2(8)T. This is nuts! I took a look at the open caveats for 12.2(10) and was quite surprised at what I found. Keep in mind that they're only listing the severity 1 and 2 caveats plus a few select severity 3 caveats. With my browser window fully open, I had to hit 81 times to get through the list! That's eighty one pages of known bugs, and only the worst of the bunch, not a complete list. It scares me sometimes what I'm willing to put on our routers here at work. On one of our main routers I'm running 12.2(3) but that's only because it seems to be fairly stable in our environment and I'm afraid to upgrade.We can't downgrade because I need a couple of the features. Definitely a precarious situation. Okay, time to get some more coffee. I'm rambling. Perhaps I should attempt to argue that IGRP is a path vector protocol. Or perhaps ponder over tunneling token ring over encrypted HSRP tunnels. Regards, John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44267&t=44267 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VLAN managment domain IP Addressing... [7:44255]
It's not clear what your asking but the switch inband management ip address and the VTP domain have nothing to do with each other. Dave Edward Sohn wrote: > > hey all > > i've got a question, that seems logical enough, but I can't find any > explanation/answer for it anywhere on CCO or Cisco Press... > > Anyway, if I'm creating a VTP domain with multiple switches and VLANs > and stuff, what do I set the IP addresses to for the switches, > themselves? I mean, they have to all be on the same subnet to telnet to > (this is pre-router). But how do you solve this compatibility issue > with different IP subnets, while maintaining the accessibility of the > switches, themselves? > > Am I making sense? > > Thanks, > > Eddie -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44266&t=44255 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VLAN managment domain IP Addressing... [7:44255]
SC0 can be placed in any VLAN you specify. All ports default to VLAN 1 so putting it there may not be prudent depending on your specific security needs. For example, I have used VLAN 999 in DMZs before as the "managment rail" for the switches. HTH Darren At 02:13 PM 5/14/2002 -0400, Chris Charlebois wrote: >If you are using a set-based switch, I beleive the SC0 interface belongs to >VLAN 1 by default. I'm not even sure you can change that. > >On IOS-based switches, use the VLAN virtual interface: >Switch1(conf)#interface vlan1 >Switch1(conf-if)#ip address w.x.y.z 255.255.255.0 > >You can create virtual interfaces for any and all vlans, so the switch can >be accessed from multiple ip addresses, but the switch will not route >between vlans (obviously). x$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$: Lucent Technologies - Enhanced Services & Sales NetworkCare Professional Services http//www.lucent.com/netcare/ Darren S. Crawford - CCNP, CCDP, CISSP Distinguished Member of the Consulting Staff Northwest Region - Sacramento Office Voicemail (916) 859-5200 x310 Pager (800) 467-1467 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$:0`0:$xx$: Every Job is a Self-Portrait of the person Who Did It Autograph Your Work With EXCELLENCE! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44265&t=44255 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless LAN for Home [7:44234]
I bought and used a Linksys AP/router box and use it for my home network. I use the aironet AP340 card with it and it works okay, but its distance is weak... I brought an aironet AP340 home from work, used it to test and it bumped up the signal strength, etc of my wireless by a lot.. I now use the Linklsys DSl router/switch for the network and the Aironet AP and nic card for the wireless The linksys is okay, but other products are a lot better for the same money or maybe a little more. Larry Letterman Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roberts, Larry Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Wireless LAN for Home [7:44234] I use the BEFW11S4 and the Orinoco silver/gold cards. I have a couple of the aironet cards on order for testing, but I can say that the WPC11 ( linksys ) Card is something that you DON'T want. My range was doubled just by changing cards. You will want to go with firmware 1.39.2 if your using a version 1 linksys. I have had the 11S4 for over a year now without a problem, so its pretty stable. If you need more range consider a Linksys WAP11. You can hack the WAP to change its output power to 100mw, with only limited distortion. This gives you a Cisco like AP ( range wise ) for a considerably less amount of $$ Needless to say, USE WEP. Before people complain that it is not secure, it is from the casual hacker/war driver. If someone is going to break your WEP key, then you have other issues as to why someone is so interested in your network, IMHO. Thanks Larry -Original Message- From: Steven A. Ridder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wireless LAN for Home [7:44234] That's OK. I bought an HP wireless AP/router/FW and that was OK as well. I have heard the linksys card is pretty weak, and if you can get a Cisco aironet card, even better. ""Bolton, Travis D"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Guys, > > Any suggestions/experiences on what to buy for a wireless network > device for > my home? I'm thinking about the Linksys with the 4 port ethernet > model. Thanks for the ideas... > > Travis Bolton > Network Engineer II > CCNP,CCDA > > "Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of > value." > - Albert Einstein Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44264&t=44234 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which Catalyst uses CatOS [7:44107]
Thanks for the good feedback, I just wanted to let you know the link is www.laganiere.net (my uncle bought .com before I could grab it... :-) Thanks... --- Dennis Laganiere - Original Message - From: "Don Nguyen" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:10 AM Subject: RE: Which Catalyst uses CatOS [7:44107] > Thanks for the responses. I think I'm going to go with a 2926T/F. BTW, the > PDF on www.laganiere.com is an excellent reference. > > Thanks, > > Don Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44263&t=44107 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
>>> "Howard C. Berkowitz" 5/14/02 11:46:39 AM >>> >> No modern routing protocol uses composite metrics, in the sense that >> a numerical value is computed from several factors. I don't know if >> you'd consider route preference (e.g., OSPF intraarea over interarea >> over external) to be composite; I don't. > > >From this statement I'm inferring that you don't consider EIGRP to >be a modern protocol? I must be misunderstanding this statement, as well, and I'm wondering if it's because the word composite might have a different meaning in this context. Howard seems to stick with 'complex metric' instead of composite. Howard, is there a subtlety here that we're missing? I was under the impression that the (E)IGRP metric was a composite because it took into account multiple metrics when calculating a final metric. Even though they don't use all available factors they do still use bandwidth and delay. Doesn't that qualify? Or, are we being imprecise by using the word composite in this context in the first place? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44261&t=43994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless LAN for Home [7:44234]
Cisco. ""Alex Lee"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Any recommendation on PCI type cards ? > > > ""Roberts, Larry"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I use the BEFW11S4 and the Orinoco silver/gold cards. I have a couple of > the > > aironet cards on order for testing, but I can say that the WPC11 ( > linksys ) > > Card is something that you DON'T want. My range was doubled just by > changing > > cards. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44262&t=44234 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless LAN for Home [7:44234]
Any recommendation on PCI type cards ? ""Roberts, Larry"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I use the BEFW11S4 and the Orinoco silver/gold cards. I have a couple of the > aironet cards on order for testing, but I can say that the WPC11 ( linksys ) > Card is something that you DON'T want. My range was doubled just by changing > cards. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44260&t=44234 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which Catalyst uses CatOS [7:44107]
The Cat 4000 with SUP III comes with Cisco IOS Larry Letterman wrote: > Cat 6000 > Cat 6500 > Cat 5000 > Cat 4000 > > Larry Letterman > Cisco Systems > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Kaminski, Shawn G > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:42 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Which Catalyst uses CatOS [7:44107] > > The 2926T and the 2901 are two of them. > > Shawn K. > > -Original Message- > From: Don Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 4:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Which Catalyst uses CatOS [7:44107] > > Hi all, > > I was wondering which catalyst switches use the CatOS(Set-based CLI), other > then the Cat 5K's. > > Thanks, > > Don Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44259&t=44107 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
At 12:35 PM -0400 5/14/02, Logan, Harold wrote: >Howard, thanks for your input. Comments inline... > >Hal > >> -Original Message- >> From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:22 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] >> >> >> At 4:25 PM -0400 5/13/02, Logan, Harold wrote: >> >You're right about IGRP still being listed on the CCNA >> objectives. While >> >I've sometimes found it frustrating to teach an outdated >> protocol, IGRP is >> >useful as a teaching tool. With IGRP you can easily >> demonstrate the concept >> >of composite metrics, poison reverse, holddown timers, split > > horizon, and >> >unequal-cost load balancing, but you don't have multicast >> updates, neighbor >> >relationships, incremental updates, and VLSM's adding to the > > confusion. >> >> You make some interesting instructional points that I want to think >> about. Let me make some observations. >> >> No modern routing protocol uses composite metrics, in the sense that >> a numerical value is computed from several factors. I don't know if >> you'd consider route preference (e.g., OSPF intraarea over interarea >> over external) to be composite; I don't. > > >From this statement I'm inferring that you don't consider EIGRP to >be a modern protocol? IGRP, no. EIGRP, reasonably modern, but with less motivation for its use than there once was. For example, its ability to handle Apple and Novell was useful while they ran ships-in-the-night, but with desktop protocols moving to native IP, that's increasingly irrelevant. It's generally less resource intensive than link state protocols, but processor costs keep coming down. Carriers don't want to use it because they don't understand the internals, and they do have multivendor interoperability requirements. >If so, I would concede that it's not as scalable as OSPF or IS-IS. >But it's still deployed in networks, and anyone going through >cisco's certification program has to learn it. Or am I missing >something on EIGRP's calculation of a metric based on bandwidth and >delay? Earlier in this thread, someone used the phrase "it's true at this level." One of the things that's true at tbe "real" level is metric is not the only factor used in route selection, and often is far less important than prefix length, topological relationships, etc. OSPF and ISIS relative preference for intra-area routes is not a metric, but is more important in route selection than metric. Composite metrics simply aren't as important as was once thought they'd be. The overall trend of routing, combined with traffic engineering, is to move a lot of the load management, etc., to MPLS. MPLS uses routing protocols to find the paths that it can set up, then uses RSVP-TE or LDP to set up the paths. Loosely speaking, policy-routing like constructs assign QoS critical traffic to traffic engineered LSPs. >At any rate, I haven't had enough caffeine today to wrestle with >intraarea, interarea, and external routes as part of a composite >metric. I suppose if someone really wanted to they could try to >argue that External Type 1 routes qualify as a composite metric, but >I think even that's pushing it. Again, there's a tremendous tendency to fixate on one concept such as metric, and assume that all route selection depends on it. > >> Poison reverse, split horizon and holddown are explained decently in >> the very readable RIP RFC. > >Agreed. Whenever possible I like to demonstrate protocols in action, >rather than tell a student to take my word for it, or even take an >RFC's word for it. Besides, I almost have to threaten physical >violence before I can get a student to read an RFC. (Considering >that I work for a state-funded community college, physical threats >are usually frowned upon) RIP does work nicely along those lines; if >a student does some debugging and sees an advertisement go out with >a hop count of 16, usually a connection gets made to the idea of >advertising a network as unreachable, and viola. Poison Reverse is >now associated with a network the student has set up, and seen in >action, rather than a paragraph from a textbook or an RFC. The >benefit of demonstrating the same concepts again using IGRP is >simple reinforcement. > >> Unequal cost load balancing is increasingly deprecated; there are >> better ways to do traffic engineering. > >That's why I don't spend a lot of time covering it. I do however >have an obligation to at least pay lip service to it, enough to >ensure that students associate the variance command with UCLB. When >Cisco takes it off the cert exams, I'll stop teaching it. > >> > >> >If EIGRP replaces IGRP on the CCNA, then hopefully the >> certification team >> >will draw a clear line indicating which features of eigrp >> will be tested and >> >which ones won't. The way things are right now, IGRP m
VLAN managment domain IP Addressing... [7:44255]
hey all i've got a question, that seems logical enough, but I can't find any explanation/answer for it anywhere on CCO or Cisco Press... Anyway, if I'm creating a VTP domain with multiple switches and VLANs and stuff, what do I set the IP addresses to for the switches, themselves? I mean, they have to all be on the same subnet to telnet to (this is pre-router). But how do you solve this compatibility issue with different IP subnets, while maintaining the accessibility of the switches, themselves? Am I making sense? Thanks, Eddie Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44255&t=44255 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PVCs vs. SVCs - puzzling me. [7:44117]
It's starting to make more sense, but this leads me to another question. If Frame Relay creates a path through the switched network that all packets will take, why is it called a packetswitching technology and not a circuit switching technology? If after an SVC is established, all packets take the same path, and the SVC is disconnected or torn down, I would say that sounds like circuit switching to me. What are your thoughts? Kevin ""Kirankumar Patel"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Dear Kevin > > The PVC is established and up whether traffic is there or not. Packets will > take the same path. > > In case of SVC, during initialisation, the session is estabilshed > dynamically and the all packets will take the same path during that session. > Thus, link can be better utilized. > > Hope above clarifies ur doubt. > > Regards, > > Kiran > > >From: "Kevin Jones" > >Reply-To: "Kevin Jones" > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: PVCs vs. SVCs - puzzling me. [7:44117] > >Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 18:07:01 -0400 > > > >I was wondering if someone would be willing to clarify something regarding > >PVC's > >and SVC's (in X.25/FrameRelay/ATM). Some books and material I've read > >discuss the difference between the two as follows: > > > >PVC's - Pre-established connection and path through the switched network. > >Every packet takes the same path to reach its destination. > > > >SVC's - Dynamically established connection and path through the switched > >network Again, every packet takes the same path to reach its destination. > > > >However, I have also read that packets do not necessarily take the same > >path > >through the switched network. If that is the case, are the pre-established > >and dynamic connections to which they are refering between the router and > >the first switch? > > > >I appreciate your help. Thank you. > > > >Kevin > _ > 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=44253&t=44117 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless LAN for Home [7:44234]
I use the BEFW11S4 and the Orinoco silver/gold cards. I have a couple of the aironet cards on order for testing, but I can say that the WPC11 ( linksys ) Card is something that you DON'T want. My range was doubled just by changing cards. You will want to go with firmware 1.39.2 if your using a version 1 linksys. I have had the 11S4 for over a year now without a problem, so its pretty stable. If you need more range consider a Linksys WAP11. You can hack the WAP to change its output power to 100mw, with only limited distortion. This gives you a Cisco like AP ( range wise ) for a considerably less amount of $$ Needless to say, USE WEP. Before people complain that it is not secure, it is from the casual hacker/war driver. If someone is going to break your WEP key, then you have other issues as to why someone is so interested in your network, IMHO. Thanks Larry -Original Message- From: Steven A. Ridder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wireless LAN for Home [7:44234] That's OK. I bought an HP wireless AP/router/FW and that was OK as well. I have heard the linksys card is pretty weak, and if you can get a Cisco aironet card, even better. ""Bolton, Travis D"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Guys, > > Any suggestions/experiences on what to buy for a wireless network > device for > my home? I'm thinking about the Linksys with the 4 port ethernet > model. Thanks for the ideas... > > Travis Bolton > Network Engineer II > CCNP,CCDA > > "Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of > value." > - Albert Einstein Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44254&t=44234 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dial up problem [7:44244]
E&M is for trunks, and not lines. I don't think a phone line would have E&M on it, even in a different country, but I've never been in Japan. ""Alex Lei"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Yoschii, > > This sounds more like the so - called "blind dial". Some countries will not > have the dial tone when you connect the modem to it. In order to use dial up > you have to disable the "wait for dial tone" feature otherwise your modem > would just wait forever. > > Alex > > supernet wrote: > > > > When I travel to Japan, I have to disable "wait for dial tone" > > to make > > my Windows dial-up networking work. I was told Japan hotel PBXs > > were > > configured this way. Is this so-called "E&M delay start"? Will > > disable > > "wait for dial tone" cause any problem in US? > > > > Thanks. > > Yoschii Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44252&t=44244 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
Hal, I agree. IGRP is a valuable teaching tool. Much like we used to teach BASIC to students before introducing more advanced programming languages. Done correctly, you could even teach Top Down, Structured Progamming techniques with BASIC. The same concept is true with IGRP. Prof. Tom Lisa, CCAI Community College of Southern Nevada Cisco ATC/Regional Networking Academy "Logan, Harold" wrote: > You're right about IGRP still being listed on the CCNA objectives. While > I've sometimes found it frustrating to teach an outdated protocol, IGRP is > useful as a teaching tool. With IGRP you can easily demonstrate the concept > of composite metrics, poison reverse, holddown timers, split horizon, and > unequal-cost load balancing, but you don't have multicast updates, neighbor > relationships, incremental updates, and VLSM's adding to the confusion. > > If EIGRP replaces IGRP on the CCNA, then hopefully the certification team > will draw a clear line indicating which features of eigrp will be tested and > which ones won't. The way things are right now, IGRP makes for a smooth > transition from the CCNA to the CCNP Routing exam. Someone who understands > IGRP doesn't need to reinvent the wheel to learn EIGRP, and once one has > supernetting and neighbor relationships in his or her belt, they can deal > with OSPF area types and LSA's and the like. > > Hal Logan CCAI, CCDP, CCNP:Voice > Network Specialist / Adjunct Faculty > Computing & Engineering Technology > Manatee Community College > > -Original Message- > From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] > > Well, it occurs to me that IGRP would be easy to implement even without > Cisco's permission. ;-) It's a simple protocol, for one thing. Also, the > Rutgers paper that describes IGRP has been out for years. Cisco never > objected to it. > > EIGRP would not be easy to implement without Cisco's blessings, developer > support, licensed code, etc. We have probably all tried to figure out some > detail of EIGRP or other and run into a brick wall. (For example, what does > an router EIGRP really do with the MTU that is passed around in Updates? ;-) > > On a related tangent, will they remove IGRP from CCNA? I'm teaching a > custom CCNA class next month, using my own materials. I find it annoying > that I have to sort of downgrade my materials to teach IGRP theory and > hands-on instead of the EIGRP I would prefer to teach and is already in my > materials. But I think I'm right that CCNA expects IGRP and not EIGRP? > > Thx > > Priscilla > > At 04:02 AM 5/13/02, nrf wrote: > >In-line > > wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Nokia might support it, but I have been (fairly reliably) told that Cisco > > > will *not* be supporting IGRP as of one of the newest IOS releases. I > > > can't find the announcement on CCO (if there is one), so take with a > grain > > > of salt, but a Cisco instructor was quite adamant about this last week. > > > >That makes sense, considering it's literally been years since I've actually > >seen a bonafide production network running IGRP. So it makes sense that > >Cisco is finally ditching this dead wood. > > > >But I'm not asking this question because I'm champing at the bit to install > >a mixed Cisco/Nokia IGRP network. No, I'm asking because if it's true that > >Nokia really does support IGRP, then that begs the question - what other > >supposedly Cisco-proprietary technologies are like this too? I'm not > >talking about situations like what Howard stated where Cisco actually has an > >agreement to provide its technology to other vendors (somehow I doubt that > >Cisco and Nokia have such an agreement), but I'm talking about full-blown > >vendor compatibility between some other vendor and Cisco. For example, does > >anybody know of another vendor that supports, say, EIGRP? Or CDP? Now you > >might say that it would be impossible for another vendor to support these > >technologies, but, hey, Nokia apparently somehow managed to support IGRP, so > >why exactly couldn't somebody else support, say, EIGRP? > > > > > > > > JMcL > > > - Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 13/05/2002 04:44 pm - > > > > > > > > > "nrf" > > > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 13/05/2002 01:42 pm > > > Please respond to "nrf" > > > > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > cc: > > > Subject:Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? > > > [7:43994] > > > Is this part of a business decision process?: > > > > > > > > > Just found this while surfing around. > > > > > > "As a network device, the Nokia IP330 supports a comprehensive suite of > > > IP-routing functions and protocols, including RIPv1/RIPv2, IGRP, OSPF and > > > BGP4 for unicast traffic..." > > > http://www.nokia.com/securitysolutions/platforms/330.html > > > > > > Ev
FREE CCNP exams and notes here [7:44250]
Check out this website, http://www.braincert.com BrainCert.com Offers FREE online practice exams, Study guides, Router labs and resources for Cisco CCIE,CCNP,CCNA,CCDP,CCDA certifications Enjoy :-) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44250&t=44250 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: dial up problem [7:44244]
Yoschii, This sounds more like the so - called "blind dial". Some countries will not have the dial tone when you connect the modem to it. In order to use dial up you have to disable the "wait for dial tone" feature otherwise your modem would just wait forever. Alex supernet wrote: > > When I travel to Japan, I have to disable "wait for dial tone" > to make > my Windows dial-up networking work. I was told Japan hotel PBXs > were > configured this way. Is this so-called "E&M delay start"? Will > disable > "wait for dial tone" cause any problem in US? > > Thanks. > Yoschii > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44249&t=44244 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Which Catalyst uses CatOS [7:44107]
Cat 6000 Cat 6500 Cat 5000 Cat 4000 Larry Letterman Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kaminski, Shawn G Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Which Catalyst uses CatOS [7:44107] The 2926T and the 2901 are two of them. Shawn K. -Original Message- From: Don Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 4:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Which Catalyst uses CatOS [7:44107] Hi all, I was wondering which catalyst switches use the CatOS(Set-based CLI), other then the Cat 5K's. Thanks, Don Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44248&t=44107 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless LAN for Home [7:44234]
That's OK. I bought an HP wireless AP/router/FW and that was OK as well. I have heard the linksys card is pretty weak, and if you can get a Cisco aironet card, even better. ""Bolton, Travis D"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Guys, > > Any suggestions/experiences on what to buy for a wireless network device for > my home? I'm thinking about the Linksys with the 4 port ethernet model. > Thanks for the ideas... > > Travis Bolton > Network Engineer II > CCNP,CCDA > > "Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of > value." > - Albert Einstein Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44247&t=44234 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: application-oriented network design [7:42933] VG200 [7:44246]
Hello every body, I start searching about somebody talking about VG200 Gateway and I found this discussion I have a question and I know its silly one but I have no time to read about VoIP technology as I have dead line at 18-5-2002 to propose a solution to one of my customers The scenario is: Two sites in Saudi Arabia, the distance between those two sites is 22.5 Km, the contractor scope is to establish wireless connection with VOIP; in each site PBX is available. They mentioned that they want 4-pair lines from each PBX to be connected to the VOIP Gateway. At the first site they want FXS lines and in the second site they FXO lines, the VOIP Gateway will be connected to the LAN Switch and the LAN Switch will be connected to the Wireless LAN Bridge. They have confined me with a certain features to be available in the VOIP Gateway, the features is: 1. Supplied equipment shall fully comply with VOIP Industry standard ITU-H.323 Protocol. 2. The offered VoIP gateway shall provide Four (4) voice/fax channels for communication over the WLAN link under this project. 3. Equipment shall support 10/100 BaseT Ethernet connectivity and full IP compatibility with existing routers and LAN infrastructure. 4. Equipment shall provide Voice compression support for multiple algorithms including ITU G.723 AND G.729 5. Equipment shall support Voice prioritization using industry-standard Differentiated service (Diffserv) protocol or an alternative standard QIS protocol. 7. Equipment shall provide (4) FXS ports at the second site for analog connection to existing PBX Central Office (CO) Trunk Card. 6. Equipment shall provide (4) FXO ports in the first site for connection to existing PBX. 8. The offered VoIP gateway shall provide Dial, Busy, Fast busy, and ring back tones 9. Equipment shall be remotely configurable and manageable via SNMP The question here: Is VG200 suitable for this scenario ?? Note: I do not think we need routing here as the LAN bridge will do the job of routing. Your Help please. Ismail Al-shelh. -Original Message- From: Larry Letterman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 4:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: application-oriented network design [7:42933] Talk to me offline and I'll describe to how all that was done here at cisco.. We have implemented just about everything you mentioned on our campus. Larry Letterman Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Tom Scott" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 5:47 PM Subject: application-oriented network design [7:42933] > I'm reading Priscilla's "Top-Down Network Design". I recommend it as a > complement to the Semester 7 BCMSN books. > > Is there a design strategy or methodology that I can use to diagram > application layers into the logical topology? The application I have > in mind is AVVID. Suppose the implementation was to take place in two > phases: integration of data and IP telephony in phase I, adding video > conferencing in phase II. Suppose also that the design included > several VG200's and the MCS 7800 (either 7825-800 or 7835-1000), also > a switching backbone consisting of 6509 switch with supervisor engine > in module 1 and 48-port IP phone blades in modules 2, 3, etc. Phase I > would use external 2600 routers; in phase II routing would be moved to > the 6509, keeping one or more of the 2600's as backup. > > Is there a standard technique for incorporating AVVID applications > such as this in the logical and/or physical network diagram? I'd > especially like to find a template of the logical components and how > they interact with each other. That might help explain how to select > the hardware and software, and where to locate them in the logical and > physical topologies. > > -- TIA, TT Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44246&t=44246 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
Howard, thanks for your input. Comments inline... Hal > -Original Message- > From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:22 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] > > > At 4:25 PM -0400 5/13/02, Logan, Harold wrote: > >You're right about IGRP still being listed on the CCNA > objectives. While > >I've sometimes found it frustrating to teach an outdated > protocol, IGRP is > >useful as a teaching tool. With IGRP you can easily > demonstrate the concept > >of composite metrics, poison reverse, holddown timers, split > horizon, and > >unequal-cost load balancing, but you don't have multicast > updates, neighbor > >relationships, incremental updates, and VLSM's adding to the > confusion. > > You make some interesting instructional points that I want to think > about. Let me make some observations. > > No modern routing protocol uses composite metrics, in the sense that > a numerical value is computed from several factors. I don't know if > you'd consider route preference (e.g., OSPF intraarea over interarea > over external) to be composite; I don't. >From this statement I'm inferring that you don't consider EIGRP to be a modern protocol? If so, I would concede that it's not as scalable as OSPF or IS-IS. But it's still deployed in networks, and anyone going through cisco's certification program has to learn it. Or am I missing something on EIGRP's calculation of a metric based on bandwidth and delay? At any rate, I haven't had enough caffeine today to wrestle with intraarea, interarea, and external routes as part of a composite metric. I suppose if someone really wanted to they could try to argue that External Type 1 routes qualify as a composite metric, but I think even that's pushing it. > Poison reverse, split horizon and holddown are explained decently in > the very readable RIP RFC. Agreed. Whenever possible I like to demonstrate protocols in action, rather than tell a student to take my word for it, or even take an RFC's word for it. Besides, I almost have to threaten physical violence before I can get a student to read an RFC. (Considering that I work for a state-funded community college, physical threats are usually frowned upon) RIP does work nicely along those lines; if a student does some debugging and sees an advertisement go out with a hop count of 16, usually a connection gets made to the idea of advertising a network as unreachable, and viola. Poison Reverse is now associated with a network the student has set up, and seen in action, rather than a paragraph from a textbook or an RFC. The benefit of demonstrating the same concepts again using IGRP is simple reinforcement. > Unequal cost load balancing is increasingly deprecated; there are > better ways to do traffic engineering. That's why I don't spend a lot of time covering it. I do however have an obligation to at least pay lip service to it, enough to ensure that students associate the variance command with UCLB. When Cisco takes it off the cert exams, I'll stop teaching it. > > > >If EIGRP replaces IGRP on the CCNA, then hopefully the > certification team > >will draw a clear line indicating which features of eigrp > will be tested and > >which ones won't. The way things are right now, IGRP makes > for a smooth > >transition from the CCNA to the CCNP Routing exam. Someone > who understands > >IGRP doesn't need to reinvent the wheel to learn EIGRP, > > I'd argue that other than some similarities in commands and metrics, > IGRP and EIGRP are completely different protocols. This is conjecture on my part, as I won't teach my first CCNP class until January... but it seems to me that when put in a class where they have to learn the basics of EIGRP, OSPF, and BGP, students are going to focus first and foremost on the configuration commands. Considering that the only difference between the basic configuration process for igrp and for ip eigrp is the addition of the mask option after the network command (along with the addition of a vowel) I believe that will free up some CPU cycles so that students can focus on DUAL, multiple topology tables, summary addresses, feasible successors, and other new concepts. > There is a trivial case of neighbor relationships in RIP, as a router > with a RIP-enabled interface will suppress outgoing updates until it > hears a RIP query from a router on the medium. That is a form of > neighbor discovery. > > It is different from using a hello subprotocol to know if a neighbor > is still alive. See, I call that a useful comparison. When I field questions, I'd say at least half of them boil down to "how does this compare to what I already know?" > Personally, when I'm teaching beginning IP, I start with binary, and > then VLSM/CIDR becomes a natural idea. I then introduce dotted > decimal, and only as an afterthought mention classes. Works well > whenever I've tried it. I v
dial up problem [7:44244]
When I travel to Japan, I have to disable "wait for dial tone" to make my Windows dial-up networking work. I was told Japan hotel PBXs were configured this way. Is this so-called "E&M delay start"? Will disable "wait for dial tone" cause any problem in US? Thanks. Yoschii Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44244&t=44244 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Which Catalyst uses CatOS [7:44107]
Thanks for the responses. I think I'm going to go with a 2926T/F. BTW, the PDF on www.laganiere.com is an excellent reference. Thanks, Don Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44243&t=44107 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fw: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
At 10:51 AM -0400 5/14/02, Chuck wrote: >interesting discussion. > >a couple of thoughts of minor value. > >1) one way to determine whether or not (E)IGRP is a distance vector or not >is to consider that (E)IGRP has a definite diameter limit that is >changeable. Several months ago there was a discussion on this board about >just that. If you have an (E)IGRP network with a diameter of, say, 25, and >you use the appropriate option to change the max distance to 23, some of >your routers and routes will disappear. Even though the routing table shows >(E)IGRP routes with some incomprehensible number in the metric column, the >fact is that the protocols are limited by hops That's not an essential part of DV, merely a practical sanity check. It is, of course, essential in RIP because RIP uses hop count as an interface cost in building its metric. > >2) as an aside, I suppose it could be argued that all protocols are limited >by the IP TTL, but distance vector protocols all have built in limits to >their diameters. the link state protocols appear to have no such limits, >other than the structural one imposed by IP itself. > >3) I think I am understanding that the "link" in link state refers to >something other than what I originally thought. Does "link" refer to the >neighbor state, the physical wire being up, both, neither? It's a somewhat unfortunate term, in that it doesn't precisely correspond to a concept in actual networking, but in graph theory. The Dijkstra algorithm builds a tree from an arbitrary root, and then grows "links" from there. In reality, router nodes generally form vertices and subnets form arcs, but that's not completely clear-cut, and it's just as easy, from a theoretical standpoint, to assume Dijkstra uses its own arbitrary vertices and treats all types of "links" as potential arcs (i.e., if they are on the best path). > >once again, another great thread, clarifying a lot of things that I "already >knew" > >Oh, one last thing - yes indeed, do not trust anything Cisco says on their >web site. The configuration information is fine. the theoretical stuff is >very often of questionable value. wish I could still find that link about >the reasons for the diameter limitation of EIGRP. It was hilarious. > >Chuck Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44242&t=43994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ARP problems, anyone? [7:44108]
Thank you everyone for the feedback. Although configuring the default gateway on PC2 with its own IP address allowed me to ping from PC1 to PC2, it caused some other problems in a part of the network that I omitted, so I had to re-configure it back without a default gateway. Let me re-draw the diagram to include the omitted part: |---Private Network-| ---Public Network--| e0 e1e0 e1 e0 e1 e0 e1 PC1---router A--routerB-PC2routerCInternet So, basically PC2 is a server with interfaces in a public and a private network. Router A and router B connect an office to the hosting center via a T1 line, that's why we need the router. Otherwise, there is no need for the router on the private interface, since they can communicate via NetBIOS names without any security concerns. What happened when I configured PC2 with it's own IP on the default gateway was that the public interface stopped responding away (Windows 2000 server). When I configure the default GW as routerB's address, the same thing happen but is sporadic and only starts after a week or so. Weird! As far as setting a default route, I don't think this will work on Windows 2000 unless it is acting as a router itself. -Henrique - Original Message - From: "John Neiberger" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 3:04 AM Subject: Re: ARP problems, anyone? [7:44108] > I suppose this would depend on the behavior of PC2. Will it send ARP > requests for all destinations if it doesn't have a default gateway > configured? If so -- and you have Proxy ARP configured on Router B -- > then yes, Router B will respond with its own MAC address, allowing PC2 > to communicate with PC1. > > However, I don't recall that being normal behavior for a PC without a > default gateway. I have heard, though, that if you use the IP address > of the PC as its default gateway that some PCs will ARP for everything. > It sounds like that's the sort of behavior you're looking for. > > To determine if Proxy ARP is enabled on Router B, use 'show ip int e1'. > Somewhere in that output should be your answer. > > John > > >>> "Henrique Duarte" 5/13/02 3:50:37 PM >>> > John, > thanks for the feedback. > So PC2 doesn't have a default gateway configured and will send a > broadcast > for the address of PC1. Since router B is on the same subnet and > "knows" > where PC1 is, shouldn't it respond as a proxy? > > -H > > - Original Message - > From: "John Neiberger" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 5:13 PM > Subject: Re: ARP problems, anyone? [7:44108] > > > > Unless you're bridging, ARP doesn't function here the way I _think_ > you > > think it does. > > > > If PC2 receives an incoming ICMP echo request and it wants to > generate > > a response, it first compares the network portion of the destination > > address to its own subnet. If you're not bridging they will be > > different. In that case, PC2 will not send an ARP request for PC1, > it > > will simply forward the packet to the default gateway. > > > > Of course, at some point PC2 will send an ARP request to get the > > hardware address of Router B, but it will never need to know the > > hardware address of PC1. > > > > Now, if you're bridging then PC1 and PC2 should be on the same > subnet > > and neither would require a default gateway to speak to the other. > > > > HTH, > > John > > > > >>> "Henrique Duarte" 5/13/02 2:50:43 PM >>> > > OK Networking gurus. I hope you can help me with this easy one: > > > > > > > > e0 e1e0 e1 > > PC1---router A--routerB-PC2 > > > > > > PC1 can ping routerB (e1) > > PC2 can ping routerA (e0) > > > > PC1 cannot ping PC2 > > > > > > PC2 has NO default gateway (and is not supposed to have one). I've > > added a > > static arp entry on PC2: PC1's IP address point to routerB e1's MAC > > address. Why do I need the default gateway even though I already > > configured > > a static arp entry on PC2? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > -H > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44241&t=44108 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IPSEC config on Cisco [7:44240]
Hi all, I'm configuring a Cisco 2621 for VPN connection. Im typing in the configuration and I dont get any error message but when I want to see my running config, some part of the config are not there here is a part of the IPSEC config I want to have: crypto map vpnmap 50 ipsec-manual set peer 63.104.50.75 set session-key inbound esp 1022521 authenticator 300089000edf100034000edf set session-key outbound esp 235098 authenticator 980001000edf340001000edf set transform-set vpntransform match address 100 Here is what I see after "show running-config": crypto map vpnmap 50 ipsec-manual set peer 63.104.50.75 set transform-set vpntransform match address 100 everythg related to session-key is not shown !!?? Does anybody know why it's hidden or deleted?? Thanx a lot jctheard Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44240&t=44240 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Give up...Cannot ping from one spoke to another?? [7:43795]
also on your frame relay mapping, make sure you use the keyword "BROADCAST". -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of CCNP .CA Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Give up...Cannot ping from one spoke to another?? [7:43795] Can you change the logical configuration of FR by using P2P subinterfaces. This will make all routes go via hub router. --- Cisco Nuts wrote: > Yes, policy routing could very well be the solution > without using FR map > statements. But how would I go about doing this? I > mean what kind of policy > routing needs to be in place on the spoke so that I > can ping to the other > spoke (going thru the Hub rtr). And thus, get to the > Ethernets of the spoke > routers. > > The hub router is the only one that can get to the > ethernets on the spokes > and the spoke routers can ONLY get to the ethernet > of the hub router not to > the ethernet of the other spoke. > > Could it be just static routes on the hub router > pointing the next hop to > the serial of the spoke router? > I will try this. > > But any other ideas are gratefully appreciatedI > have tired my eyes on > CCO till 3:00am in the morning and still not find > the freaking answer. > > Thank you. > > > >From: Stephen Barlow > >To: 'Cisco Nuts' > >Subject: RE: Give up...Cannot ping from one spoke > to another?? [7:43795] > >Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 07:58:19 -0400 > > > >I believe policy routing or frame maps on each > spoke would solve it. Is > >the > >next hop of the spokes the other spoke? If yes, > frame needs a layer 2 (or > >routing) to get around this. > >Hope it helps > > > >Steve > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Cisco Nuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: May 9, 2002 9:15 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Give up...Cannot ping from one spoke to > another?? [7:43795] > > > > > >Hello, > > > >I have RTA configed as a FR hub with multipoint > subif. I have RTB, RTC and > >RTE configed as spokes using only the serial intf. > - FR network type > >Non-Broadcast. Have 1 single FR map statement on > the spokes pointing to the > >hub. Have 3 map statements on the hub pointing back > to each of the 3 > >spokes. > > > >Have Ospf configed. Area 0 the FR network for the > serials. Area 1 on RTA, > >Area 10 on RTB and Area 4 on RTE each for the > Ethernet side. Also have the > >neighbor statement on each spoke pointing to the > hub with a priority of 2. > > > >A show ip route reveals all the OSPF networks (O IA > routes) on each router. > >I can only ping from the hub router RTA to networks > on the spoke routers > >BUT > > > >I cannot ping from one spoke router to a network on > another spoke router > >EVEN though the routes are in the routing table? > > > >Why is that? > > > >A CATCH: I am not allowed to use the ip ospf > network command anywhere nor > >FR > > > >map statements on each spoke pointing to the other > spokes?? > > > >What is the way that will allow me to ping from RTB > to RTC thru RTA the hub > >router? > > > >I tried the default-information originate on the > hub rtr. RTA but this does > >not seem to help - even though it installs a > default route on each spoke > >router. > > > >I am giving up after tiring me eyes on CCO. > > > >Anyone with any ideas? > > > >Thank you for your help. > > > > > > > > > > > >_ > >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print > your photos: > >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > >This e-mail message is intended only for the person > or entity to which it > >is addressed > >and is confidential, subject to copyright and may > be legally privileged. > >Any > >unauthorized review, use or disclosure is > prohibited. If you received this > >in error, > >please contact the sender and delete all copies of > the e-mail together with > >any > >attachments. > > > > > > > > > _ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print > your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Find, Connect, Date! http://personals.yahoo.ca Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44239&t=43795 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco Certification Digest V2 #2076 (Vacation) [7:44238]
I will be on vacation from 5-7-02 to 5-22-02. Any matter regarding network management please forward to Bob Taylor @ 213-979-0032. Thanks. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44238&t=44238 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: bit time [7:44144]
> Thank you Remmert. Can I assume that with a 16 Mb Token ring > a bit time > would be 16 bits per seconds? 16.000.000 bits per second would be safe assumption. Hence, the bit time is 0.000625s (not quite sure what exact part of second that is :-). Marko. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44237&t=44144 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2900 series swithc [7:44092]
Going from memory here, but I think you are wrong. From what I remember the ASICs and such on the old 10mb routers cant handle the larger frame sizes that could be generated with dot1q trunking. Peter --On Tuesday, May 14, 2002 3:19 AM -0400 John Golovich wrote: > I believe a 2500 series can act as a router for dot1q trunking. While > 10mb isnt recommended because of overhead, it should work in a lab > environment to gain experience with trunking. > > - Original Message - > From: "Marco Gaona" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:48 PM > Subject: RE: 2900 series swithc [7:44092] > > >> which 2900 series. If you are trying to trunk with a router , you will > need >> a fast ethernet on the router. If it's IOS based the command is : >> switchport access vlan 100 >> switchport mode access >> >> You can enter the vlan info in the vlan database by typing >> vlan database >> vlan 100 name Engineering >> >> If it's set-based CLI the command is : >> >> Set trunk 1/1 >> and if you are using a router (must have fast ethernet) in the Fast >> ethernet interface type >> >> encapsulation isl > Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44236&t=44092 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade IOS on 2504, Please assist [7:44135]
Under hyperterm you need to specify xmodem transfer/send file via xmodem first then the router next. Hope this helps!! MG ""hktco"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > what do you want? instruction? ios image? > > hktco > > - Original Message - > From: "Kris Keen" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 4:48 PM > Subject: RE: Upgrade IOS on 2504, Please assist [7:44135] > > > Anyone?> Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44235&t=44135 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wireless LAN for Home [7:44234]
Guys, Any suggestions/experiences on what to buy for a wireless network device for my home? I'm thinking about the Linksys with the 4 port ethernet model. Thanks for the ideas... Travis Bolton Network Engineer II CCNP,CCDA "Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value." - Albert Einstein Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44234&t=44234 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
Actually, I've seen newer materials that have stopped using the word "hybrid" altogether and instead refer to EIGRP as an "Enhanced Distance Vector" or a "Modified Distance Vector" protocol. An instructor I met a few months ago introduced me to a phrase that I've since found very useful: "The truth at this level". He used this phrase when trying to answer a question one of his CCNA students asked him, without getting too complicated. In an effort to keep things simple, Lammle makes several statements in his CCNA books that aren't true 100% of the time, but an aspiring networker studying for the CCNA doesn't need to get beyond a certain level of detail, lest they get overwhelmed. Rick would do well to put that phrase at the beginning of anything Lammle writes in a CCNA book. At the CCNA level, it's fairly safe to say that EIGRP has features in common with distance vector protocols and link state protocols. At the CCNP level, I would expect an aspiring networker to learn what features EIGRP has in common with distance vector protocols, and I would expect him or her to note that those features, such as established adjacencies, VLSM support, and incremental updates are simply additional features, not the core of the routing process. Unless of course you simply want to stay at the CCNA level, in which case I'd say that you can call EIGRP a hybrid protocol all day long if that floats your boat. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter van Oene Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 3:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] Couple thoughts here Rick. First off, always consider that there may be (and usually are) flaws in secondary source material and thus don't believe everything you read.Beyond that, I have a couple questions related to the matter. Primarily, what exactly is a hybrid routing protocol? Hybrid is a pretty ambiguous term if you ask me. Additionally, what elements of link state routing are evident in the EIGRP implementation? Simply because a protocol happens to build adjacencies via hello packets does not categorize it as a link state protocol. I'd fully concur with Priscilla's description of the details and Howard B also has written similar on this topic in his Scalable Link State Routing series on www.certificationzone.com. At 06:42 PM 5/13/2002 -0400, Rick wrote: >Priscilla, >I hate to differ with you on this Hybrid or not but the source says >it is considered a Hybrid routing Protocol. check the link for yourself >http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/en_igrp.htm > >I myself am not a fan Lammle, but on this one he is right and you are wrong >and YES I said you are wrong! EIGRP is as much Link-State as it is Distance >Vector. >Rick > >""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > At 04:13 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote: > > >Lammle refers to EIGRP as being a Hybrid of distance-vector and link >state. > > > > That's wrong. EIGRP is not link-state in any way. EIGRP calculates a flat > > routing table that lists networks, distance, and next hop (distance > > vectors). If the list contains multiple entries for a destination (because > > there are multiple ways to reach the destination), the entries are sorted > > by metric and the one with the lowest metric is selected. This is very > > different than how a link-state protocol functions. > > > > A link-state routing protocol creates a mathematical graph that depicts >he > > network. A link-state protocol implements a sophisticated process, called > > the Dijkstra algorithm, to determine the shortest path to all points in >the > > graph when the nodes and links in the graph are known. Link-state has a > > specific meaning to computer scientists. You'll find a lot of good stuff > > about it if you search with Google. A lot of it is not related to routing > > protocols. > > > > EIGRP does have some features that make it different from other > > distance-vector protocols. Although EIGRP still sends vectors with >distance > > information, the updates are non-periodic, partial, and bounded. > > Non-periodic means that updates are sent only when a metric changes rather > > than at regular intervals. Partial means that updates include only routes > > that have changed, not every entry in the routing table. Bounded means >that > > updates are sent only to affected routers. These behaviors mean that EIGRP > > uses very little bandwidth. > > > > EIGRP also determines a feasible successor, which other distance-vector > > protocols don't do. Its complex metric is also a feature not found in many > > other distance-vector algorithms, (except IGRP of course). > > > > Please do not send messages to me directly, especially not to quote Lammle > > CCNA fluff. > > > > Priscilla > > > > >He only gives a brief mention of EIGRP and says to refer to the CCNP >study > > >gu
Re: Upgrade IOS on 2504, Please assist [7:44135]
what do you want? instruction? ios image? hktco - Original Message - From: "Kris Keen" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 4:48 PM Subject: RE: Upgrade IOS on 2504, Please assist [7:44135] Anyone?> Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44232&t=44135 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Give up...Cannot ping from one spoke to another?? [7:43795]
Can you change the logical configuration of FR by using P2P subinterfaces. This will make all routes go via hub router. --- Cisco Nuts wrote: > Yes, policy routing could very well be the solution > without using FR map > statements. But how would I go about doing this? I > mean what kind of policy > routing needs to be in place on the spoke so that I > can ping to the other > spoke (going thru the Hub rtr). And thus, get to the > Ethernets of the spoke > routers. > > The hub router is the only one that can get to the > ethernets on the spokes > and the spoke routers can ONLY get to the ethernet > of the hub router not to > the ethernet of the other spoke. > > Could it be just static routes on the hub router > pointing the next hop to > the serial of the spoke router? > I will try this. > > But any other ideas are gratefully appreciatedI > have tired my eyes on > CCO till 3:00am in the morning and still not find > the freaking answer. > > Thank you. > > > >From: Stephen Barlow > >To: 'Cisco Nuts' > >Subject: RE: Give up...Cannot ping from one spoke > to another?? [7:43795] > >Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 07:58:19 -0400 > > > >I believe policy routing or frame maps on each > spoke would solve it. Is > >the > >next hop of the spokes the other spoke? If yes, > frame needs a layer 2 (or > >routing) to get around this. > >Hope it helps > > > >Steve > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Cisco Nuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: May 9, 2002 9:15 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Give up...Cannot ping from one spoke to > another?? [7:43795] > > > > > >Hello, > > > >I have RTA configed as a FR hub with multipoint > subif. I have RTB, RTC and > >RTE configed as spokes using only the serial intf. > - FR network type > >Non-Broadcast. Have 1 single FR map statement on > the spokes pointing to the > >hub. Have 3 map statements on the hub pointing back > to each of the 3 > >spokes. > > > >Have Ospf configed. Area 0 the FR network for the > serials. Area 1 on RTA, > >Area 10 on RTB and Area 4 on RTE each for the > Ethernet side. Also have the > >neighbor statement on each spoke pointing to the > hub with a priority of 2. > > > >A show ip route reveals all the OSPF networks (O IA > routes) on each router. > >I can only ping from the hub router RTA to networks > on the spoke routers > >BUT > > > >I cannot ping from one spoke router to a network on > another spoke router > >EVEN though the routes are in the routing table? > > > >Why is that? > > > >A CATCH: I am not allowed to use the ip ospf > network command anywhere nor > >FR > > > >map statements on each spoke pointing to the other > spokes?? > > > >What is the way that will allow me to ping from RTB > to RTC thru RTA the hub > >router? > > > >I tried the default-information originate on the > hub rtr. RTA but this does > >not seem to help - even though it installs a > default route on each spoke > >router. > > > >I am giving up after tiring me eyes on CCO. > > > >Anyone with any ideas? > > > >Thank you for your help. > > > > > > > > > > > >_ > >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print > your photos: > >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > >This e-mail message is intended only for the person > or entity to which it > >is addressed > >and is confidential, subject to copyright and may > be legally privileged. > >Any > >unauthorized review, use or disclosure is > prohibited. If you received this > >in error, > >please contact the sender and delete all copies of > the e-mail together with > >any > >attachments. > > > > > > > > > _ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print > your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Find, Connect, Date! http://personals.yahoo.ca Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44231&t=43795 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is strange (HSRP issue)!! [7:44230]
Okay... we've got a 5513 with RSM and a 6509 with Sup2 + MSFC2... they are trunked together (at layer 2). I've got HSRP configured for 7 other VLANs on the same two switches and don't have this problem with any of them except this one VLAN. I would try to explain the problem, but here's output and config snippets from the two routers to demonstrate the problem (i.e. look at the output from the 'show stand vlan 300' command on HQ5). I've also included pings between to two to demonstrate that they can indeed communicate with each other. Remember that none of the other VLANs (with virtually the exact same config except for different IPs/subnets works fine) Any input is appreciated! HQ7 = Sup2 w/MSFC2 in 6509 running Native IOS 12.1(8b)E7 - interface Vlan300 ip address 10.41.246.35 255.255.255.224 no ip redirects standby timers 5 15 standby priority 110 preempt standby ip 10.41.246.34 HQ7#show stand vlan 300 Vlan300 - Group 0 Local state is Standby, priority 110, may preempt Hellotime 5 holdtime 15 configured hellotime 5 sec holdtime 15 sec Next hello sent in 00:00:02.450 Virtual IP address is 10.41.246.34 configured Active router is 10.41.246.36 expires in 00:00:11, priority 130 Standby router is local 3 state changes, last state change 3d17h HQ7#ping 10.41.246.36 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.41.246.36, timeout is 2 seconds: ! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/2/4 ms HQ5 = RSM in 5513 running IOS 11.3(3a)WA4(5) - interface Vlan300 ip address 10.41.246.36 255.255.255.224 no ip redirects standby timers 5 15 standby priority 130 standby preempt standby ip 10.41.246.34 HQ5#show stand vlan 300 Vlan300 - Group 0 Local state is Active, priority 130, may preempt Hellotime 5 holdtime 15 configured hellotime 5 sec holdtime 15 sec Next hello sent in 00:00:00.572 Hot standby IP address is 10.41.246.34 configured Active router is local Standby router is unknown expired Standby virtual mac address is .0c07.ac00 HQ5#ping 10.41.246.35 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.41.246.35, timeout is 2 seconds: ! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/3/8 ms Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44230&t=44230 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fw: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
interesting discussion. a couple of thoughts of minor value. 1) one way to determine whether or not (E)IGRP is a distance vector or not is to consider that (E)IGRP has a definite diameter limit that is changeable. Several months ago there was a discussion on this board about just that. If you have an (E)IGRP network with a diameter of, say, 25, and you use the appropriate option to change the max distance to 23, some of your routers and routes will disappear. Even though the routing table shows (E)IGRP routes with some incomprehensible number in the metric column, the fact is that the protocols are limited by hops 2) as an aside, I suppose it could be argued that all protocols are limited by the IP TTL, but distance vector protocols all have built in limits to their diameters. the link state protocols appear to have no such limits, other than the structural one imposed by IP itself. 3) I think I am understanding that the "link" in link state refers to something other than what I originally thought. Does "link" refer to the neighbor state, the physical wire being up, both, neither? once again, another great thread, clarifying a lot of things that I "already knew" Oh, one last thing - yes indeed, do not trust anything Cisco says on their web site. The configuration information is fine. the theoretical stuff is very often of questionable value. wish I could still find that link about the reasons for the diameter limitation of EIGRP. It was hilarious. Chuck ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 4:47 AM -0400 5/14/02, Ouellette, Tim wrote: > >Below is some information that i've pulled from Cisco.com > > > >Summary > >Cisco Systems's EIGRP is one of the most feature-rich and robust routing > >protocols to ever be developed. Its unique combination of features blends > >the best attributes of distance vector protocols with the best attributes of > >link-state protocols. The result is a hybrid routing protocol that defies > >easy categorization with conventional protocols. > > > >EIGRP is also remarkably easy to configure and use, as well as remarkably > >efficient and secure in operation. It can be used in conjunction with IPv4, > >AppleTalk, and IPX. More importantly, its modular architecture will readily > >enable Cisco to add support for other routed protocols that may be developed > >in the future. > > > >Enhanced IGRP relies on four fundamental concepts: neighbor tables, topology > >tables, route states, and route tagging. Each of these is summarized in the > >discussions that follow. > > > >Other than the fact that cisco says EIGRP was developed from IGRP and they > >will redistribute between themselves automatically. I don't see the > >similarity between them. I struggle to see how EIGRP is anything like a > >distance-vector protocol. > > > >Tim > > In the most basic sense, routers operating in a distance vector > algorithm exchange routes, cumulatively adding their own costs to a > potential complete path to a destination. Because the process is > cumulative, it is more of a distributed processing model and thus > potentially has less CPU demand. Because it is cumulative, data may > be old and inaccurate, which is where EIGRP and the DUAL algorithms > have made advances to prevent. Bellman-Ford and DUAL algorithms both > are based on cumulative computation. > > Routers operating in a link state algorithm do not exchange routes, > but send along information about specific "balls and string" -- > router nodes and the links directly connected to them. A router > receiving such information from a nonadjacent router doesn't do > anything to it such as adding its own costs. The router will simply > pass it downstream to other routers, after applying sanity checks to > see that it does not have more recent data. When a link state router > has complete data, it does an independent computation of best routes > from its own data, using the Dijkstra algorithm and extensions. It > does pass routes to the local router's routing table installation > process and to processes with which it is redistributing, but it does > NOT exchange routes with other routers in the same routing domain. > Because the computation is of the entire topological data base, that > computation tends to be more processor intensive, but also more > accurate, than DV. The computational intensity is the major reason > that hierarchical structures are needed for LS protocols, because you > need to limit the number of link states entering the computation. > Typical OSPF intra-area computational load is proportional to the > number of subnets times the logarithm of the number of routers. > > A major confusion that creeps into this comparison is that > update-only mechanisms just happened to be introduced first WITH link > state computation, but link state is in no way dependent on > update-only mechanisms implemented with hello subprotocols. > > If you look at EIGRP's protocol ex
RE: bit time [7:44144]
Thank you Remmert. Can I assume that with a 16 Mb Token ring a bit time would be 16 bits per seconds? Pierre-Alex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of C restion Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: bit time [7:44144] Hi Pierre, A bit-time is the time it takes to send a bit. For 10Mb Ethernet a bit-time is a 100 nanoseconds (10 Megabit per second, so 1 bit per 100 nanoseconds), for Fast Ethernet it is 10 nanoseconds and so on. So if a workstation on a Fast Ethernet network were to wait 5 bit-times, it actually waits 50 nanoseconds. Hth, Remmert Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44228&t=44144 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Securing a Aironet 350 [7:44152]
I think the only way to secure a wlan is to require vpn authentication
through the bridge. (Which means some hand held clients would not be able
to authenticate.) The client should have the vpn software loaded on their
machine/laptop, connect to a bridge residing on a vlan that has no
connectivty to anythign other than the vpn concentrator. Establish an
authenticated session and then be allowed on the network. At this point
your data is also encrypted in a means other than wep!
my $.02
-Patrick
>>> "C restion" 05/14/02 09:04AM >>>
Btwthere's a great article on Wireless security on
http://www.networkcomputing.com/1303/1303ws2.html
This article also shows the importance of finding the right balance between
risk assessment, cost and convenience.
> Confidentiality Disclaimer
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and
/or proprietary information in the possession of WellStar Health System,
Inc. ("WellStar") and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom
addressed. This email may contain information that is held to be
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any unauthorized access, dissemination, distribution or
copying of any information from this email is strictly prohibited, and may
subject you to criminal and/or civil liability. If you have received this
email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete this
email and its attachments from your computer. Thank you.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44227&t=44152
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCNA 640-607 [7:44226]
Hi! Can anyone tell me more about the ccna new exam 640-607. Is the question format same as 507, except the simulated lab?? Ron Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44226&t=44226 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Slow Links. [7:44141]
Hi.. I have a small improvement on the problem.. now this is what i did.. on rtr C i put access-lists such that only reqd data passes through.. and this resulted in clients logging without any problems.. also the users there said that after this was put the client part of this foxpro based application would not display errors of no connection or connection timing out.. all that i could see was there was a lot of activity on the RTR 805. Can this be due to excessive broadcast of the netbios ?? that helper-address has opened the ports for..? if so which ports and protocols to permit. i want to remove the access-list since 805 is really a small router to do too much of packet processing.. i would like to know if i am going in the right direction. Crestion --thanks for the mail.. i shall do that and let me see what it has to say ? can Etherpeek monitor serial links across on router ? thanks, Murali -Original Message- From: C restion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 3:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slow Links. [7:44141] Hi Murali, This definitely is a strange problem. I would advise to put sniffers on both ends of the connection (so one between the NT Server and Router A and one between router C and the Win98 client), try to logon and than watch the packet flow for any anomalies. Especially keep an eye on the 'delta time' column and watch for a sudden increase in time. This usually points to where the connection gets 'stuck' and will help you pinpoint the problem. If your company doesn't have professional sniffers, you could probably get the same result with one of the freeware sniffers (Etherpeek, etherreal). Hth, Crestion Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44225&t=44141 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bandwidth command!! [7:44055]
I mentioned this in a previous email but it appears that some of my responses from yesterday either didn't make it to the list or they arrived quite late. The default OSPF cost for an interface is 10^8 / Bandwidth. In this case, 'bandwidth' is the current setting of that parameter regardless of whether it's set at the default or not. If you tweak this parameter you will alter the OSPF cost. HTH, John >>> "Kevin Cullimore" 5/14/02 1:14:24 AM >>> An opportunity for misunderstanding that underlies this thread involves the following: DEFAULT costs are calculated for cisco OSPF interfaces based upon traditional bandwidth values associated with interface types. What's not clear is how the ospf process does this. Does anyone have any insight? - Original Message - From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" To: Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Bandwidth command!! [7:44055] > Setting the bandwidth would affect OSPF also. This isn't necessarily a bad > thing, though. You probably wouldn't be running both routing protocols on > the same interface, for one thing. But if you were, then you would want > them both to use a metric that's based on the actual bandwidth for the path. > > That sounds like good advice from the CCIE Practical Studies book. It > brings up a subtle point, in addition to the one you pointed out. The > outgoing interface may have a different level of bandwidth than the > incoming interface of the router on the other end of a circuit, in some > implementations. A good example might be a Frame Relay hub-and-spoke > design. The hub has a larger pipe than the spoke. > > Priscilla > > At 12:54 PM 5/13/02, Rajesh Kumar wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >CCIE Practical studies - Vol I book - EIGRP chapter says that the > >bandwidth command used in serial interfaces should be set to a value > >equal to the remote port speed to which the serial interface is > >connected to. > > > >For ex : > > > > RTR 1 -- RTR 2 > > > > 1.544 Mbps64 Mbps > > > > > > > > int > >s0int s0 > > bandwidth 64 > >bandwidth 1544 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >My question is - Is it not going to affect the other routing protocols > >like OSPF where we set the bandwidth decides the cost of the outgoing > >interfaces. > > > >Can somebody shed some light on this please? > > > > > >Thanks, > >Rajesh > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44224&t=44055 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: cmd. to test all 7 layers of the OSI?? [7:44157]
Sounds like your cow-orker was trained in the Miscrosoft way. Any networked application verifies the stack if it is functioning. --Tim Cisco Nuts wrote: > > Hello,What is the command that tests all 7 layers of the OSI?My > answer is > any protocol that works at the Application layer including > telnet, ftp > etc. But my coworker thinks it's only telnet?Anyone with > ideas??Thanks! > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44223&t=44157 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
where can i get this ios [7:44222]
I trying to upgrade my cisco 2900 switch and according to the documentation I need at least This ios 11.2(8)SA4 (Enterprise Edition) to be able to run trunking. However, on Cisco web site I can find it only up to ios 12.0 which I can't install because I don't have sufficient dram ,4mbs does someone here have this ios ?or where can I find it Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44222&t=44222 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: 2900 series switch [7:44092]
I figured pretty much why I can do trunking on this switch Imp running a very low ios and basically I cant upgrade because I have 4 mb of ram the minimum is 8 of dram -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 2:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: 2900 series swithc [7:44092] This is what I have User Access Verification Password: MC-2916XL-56460>en Password: MC-2916XL-56460#show version Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) C2900XL Software (C2900XL-H-M), Version 11.2(8)SA, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc 1) Copyright (c) 1986-1997 by cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Thu 11-Dec-97 11:06 by rheaton Image text-base: 0x3000, data-base: 0x001A08D0 ROM: Bootstrap program is MALIBU boot loader MC-2916XL-56460 uptime is 17 weeks, 3 days, 7 hours, 18 minutes System restarted by power-on Running default software cisco WS-C2916M-XL (PowerPC403GA) processor (revision 0x11) with 4096K/1024K byt es of memory. Processor board ID FAA0204W019, with hardware revision 0x00 Last reset from power-on 16 Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 interface(s) 32K bytes of flash-simulated non-volatile configuration memory. Base ethernet MAC Address: 00:E0:1E:DC:F9:80 Configuration register is 0xF MC-2916XL-56460# -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Daniel Cotts Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 2900 series swithc [7:44092] Do a "sh ver" and see what sort of OS is loaded. Then check out the Software Center on CCO for release notes and etc. I believe that you can update your OS on those switches to Enterprise gratis. Be sure to note how much DRAM you have. Older switches had 4MB, newer switches 8MB. Older switches are approx 14 inches front to back. Newer at about 10". All the above assumes that you have a 2900XL switch and not a 2901 or 2926. > -Original Message- > From: GEORGE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: 2900 series swithc [7:44092] > > > Im trying to trunk a 2900 switch but does not have the > switchport option > ? > Can the 2900 series handle trunking? > Or only the 2900 xl? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44220&t=44092 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Securing a Aironet 350 [7:44152]
True not everyone needs Fort Knox, but I just wanted make sure you didn't believe that WEP is secure. That's been my mantra the past month - to inform people to the dangers of relying on WEP. ""C restion"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Steven, > > Way off Hmmmthe only thing I indeed forgot to mention is the > directional antenna-danger, but to say I'm way off...that's a strong > statement. > > First of all let me clarify myself. My final comment, "Again, which solution > to go for depends on your security needs and how much you're willing to > spend." basically says it all. As much as we techies would love to be in the > ideal networking world where everything came free, this is NOT reality. > Networking is here to support business and not the other way around. > > If in this case the signal stays within the building and our friend is the > only one with a wireless card, basic WEP and access-control are all you > need. There is no business need or potential risk whatsoever to justify > purchasing expensive VPN-equipment. Again, you are right about the > directional antenna danger, but if the AP is placed on the 48th floor of a > building withouth any adjacent buildings even those won't help you too much. > > So you're right about WEP not being safe, I never claimed it to be safe. WEP > does exactly what it's designed to do, namely provide minimum level security > to get the efforts off getting on a Wireless network about as high as the > efforts to get on a wired network. The rule that additonal security is > required applies to both the wired as the wireless network. > > To summarise: ideally you would use all the security measures available to > secure your wireless network. In reality you decide what measures to take > based upon business needs (i.e. what costs are justifyable). > > Rgds, > R Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44221&t=44152 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Securing a Aironet 350 [7:44152]
Btwthere's a great article on Wireless security on http://www.networkcomputing.com/1303/1303ws2.html This article also shows the importance of finding the right balance between risk assessment, cost and convenience. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44219&t=44152 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE- I WILL BE [7:43969]
Here my favorite. About 10 years ago at a customer site a user was had a
non-IBM token ring card, the manufacturer of the NIC wanted to prove that it
could make a faster T/R card than IBM so they set the bridge priority bit on
every packet. Then to top it off the user had installed a screen saver for
their workstation and had the files installed to their home directory on the
server. It was an early version of After Dark that constantly access the
hard drive. Whenever the screen saver kicked in it brought the network to
it's knees.
- Original Message -
From: "Chuck"
To:
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: CCIE- I WILL BE [7:43969]
> my favorite story was the company whose network went down every morning
for
> a few minutes just about the time the work force was sitting down, turning
> on their PC's, and getting ready for the day. Now the obvious conclusion
is
> "it's just busy that time of day" Except that it didn't necessarily happen
> every day.
>
> To make a long story short, a couple of power users had decided they
needed
> more data jacks in their area, had purchased some switch or other at one
of
> the chain stores, and dual homed it into the LAN infrastructure. Being
> conservation conscious folks, they powered down all their equipment when
> they went home for the day, and turned it on every morning when they came
> in.
>
> the result was a campus wide spanning tree recalculation every time they
> brought their switch on line.
>
> I forget how the customer told me this was discovered.
>
>
> ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And add to that cranky users who are entirely dependent on the network
but
> > won't tell you the whole story when reporting problems. ;-)
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> > At 09:52 PM 5/12/02, Michael L. Williams wrote:
> > >"Larry Letterman" wrote in message
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > A 40 router lab is nice, but its not the same as troubleshooting a
> > > > production network with 20,000 + users at multiple sites.
> > >
> > >Here here and to add to that. "... a production network with
> > >20,000+ users at multiple sites..." running a variety of multiprotocol,
> > >quirky, sometimes custom-written (read: homemade) applications that are
> > >trying to do whatever on the network coupled with devices from
> whatever
> > >manufacturers that don't play nice ("oh, you need this device in it's
own
> > >VLAN because broadcast traffic makes it crash"), etc, etc
> > >
> > >Mike W.
> >
> >
> > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44218&t=43969
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ip telephony [7:44202]
For basic product comparisons, go to www.telezoo.com . They have some good high level comps and then you can dig into the details from there. Sincerely, Patrick J Greene -Original Message- From: Jon Mcglashan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Ip telephony [7:44202] Hi, Does anyone have any information on differences / benefits between cisco ipt versus 3com ipt. Jon McGlashan Diagonal Secure Networks Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dsnuk.com Tel: +44 (0)1256 869000 Fax: +44 (0)1256 869001 This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, distribute, copy or take any action in reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments may contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst we have taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept any liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Diagonal Group unless otherwise stated. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44216&t=44202 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: cheapest router supporting two ethernet ports [7:44061]
They are real cheap. I paid $1200 and I would be lucking to get $500 for it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: cheapest router supporting two ethernet ports [7:44061] 2514's have fallen quite a bit on Ebay of late. They roughly the same as a 1605 nowdays. Figure right about 500ish.. my quick numbers show that the average price PAID on Ebay for the last 30 days is 409.00 MikeS Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44185&t=44061 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
At 4:41 PM -0400 5/13/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: >At 04:13 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote: > >Lammle refers to EIGRP as being a Hybrid of distance-vector and link state. This is a confusion caused by Cisco marketing, partially because they associated update-only protocols with a hello subprotocol with link state. That's flatly wrong. > >That's wrong. EIGRP is not link-state in any way. EIGRP calculates a flat >routing table that lists networks, distance, and next hop (distance >vectors). If the list contains multiple entries for a destination (because >there are multiple ways to reach the destination), the entries are sorted >by metric and the one with the lowest metric is selected. This is very >different than how a link-state protocol functions. > >A link-state routing protocol creates a mathematical graph that depicts the >network. A link-state protocol implements a sophisticated process, called >the Dijkstra algorithm, to determine the shortest path to all points in the >graph when the nodes and links in the graph are known. Link-state has a >specific meaning to computer scientists. You'll find a lot of good stuff >about it if you search with Google. A lot of it is not related to routing >protocols. Where link state uses algorithms based on Dijkstra's (which is getting aged and has been modified), first and second generation DV use Bellman-Ford. EIGRP uses Diffusing Update by JJ Garcia-Luna-Alceves, who continues to publish on even more advanced DV algorithms. JJ was not involved in Cisco's EIGRP implementation. > >EIGRP does have some features that make it different from other >distance-vector protocols. Although EIGRP still sends vectors with distance >information, the updates are non-periodic, partial, and bounded. >Non-periodic means that updates are sent only when a metric changes rather >than at regular intervals. Partial means that updates include only routes >that have changed, not every entry in the routing table. Bounded means that >updates are sent only to affected routers. These behaviors mean that EIGRP >uses very little bandwidth. > >EIGRP also determines a feasible successor, which other distance-vector >protocols don't do. Its complex metric is also a feature not found in many >other distance-vector algorithms, (except IGRP of course). > The best descriptions of this are in Alex Zinin's new book on Cisco routing. It's also worth looking at JJ's papers, although they are heavy on the mathematical side. If anybody wants to start getting into the true theory of routing protocols, you'll need at least a general knowledge of graph and automata theory. This is typically an advanced undergraduate course in a CS program, but isn't impossible to learn on your own. -- "What Problem are you trying to solve?" ***send Cisco questions to the list, so all can benefit -- not directly to me*** Howard C. Berkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief Technology Officer, GettLab/Gett Communications http://www.gettlabs.com Technical Director, CertificationZone.com http://www.certificationzone.com "retired" Certified Cisco Systems Instructor (CID) #93005 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44217&t=43994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cheapest router supporting two ethernet ports [7:44061]
Check on the cisco 806 router. I think it has about four ethernet ports. other new 800 series routers that they just released should statisfy what you intend to do Ateg >From: "M.C. van den Bovenkamp" >Reply-To: "M.C. van den Bovenkamp" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: cheapest router supporting two ethernet ports [7:44061] >Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:25:50 -0400 > >Patrick Ramsey wrote: > > > Anyone know what the cheapest cisco router is that supports 2 ethernet > > ports? Either built in or modular. (if any of the older 25xx series >have > > two aui ports, that would work as well!) I would also like to put > > IOS-firewall on it so memory constraints may dictate which one I buy as >well. > >If you can get one (off Ebay, say), a 2514 would do the trick (two AUI >ports). Otherwise, a 1605R. > > Regards, > > Marco. _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44150&t=44061 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BeachFrontDirect.com [7:44048]
I've used the Transcender, FastTrack and Boson tests. Transcender: Okay tests but some questions/answers were just plain wrong. I stopped using them before my first CCNP test. They were okay for CCNA. FastTrack: Old, outdated, it seemed to me. Had wrong info in them as well. I gave up on these before my CCNA. Boson: Best all-around, I've passed CCNA, CCNP Routing and CCNP Remote Access with these and will use them for the rest. Unfortunately, the real Remote Access test is so bad that the Boson information looked like it should have been the latest version of the real test. The RA test seems outdated and very vague. I have had colleagues say the same thing. The Boson tests looked pretty good, however most of the information I learned on them was not even used in the real test. Kind of a bummer. All in all I'd say Bosons are the best for me. Nothing beats hands-on experience however and just thinking about problems in your head 8 hours a day. :) Jeff CCNA, CCNP Routing, Remote Access Passed On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 05:54:04PM -0400, Brian Zeitz wrote: > Beachfront - don't bother, anyone passing the CCNA/CCNP can write a > better piece of testing software themselves. Software is buggy, very > lame. Make some 3x5 cards, you will be better off. Besides being buggy, > they brag about how many questions are in there software. You are kinda > buying in bulk here, no quality. You might want that when buying paper > towels at a Sam's Club, but not when buying software for your career. > > STS - Generic test, they are ok. Maybe just buy 1 and see if you like it > first. You get what they advertise, but you wont be wowed by them. > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Sweeney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: BeachFrontDirect.com [7:44048] > > When I did my MCSE, I tried it. It had errors and I ended back with > Trancenders. > > Just my opinion > > MikeS Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44148&t=44048 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
At 7:04 AM -0400 5/14/02, Marko Milivojevic wrote: > > Personally, when I'm teaching beginning IP, I start with binary, and >> then VLSM/CIDR becomes a natural idea. I then introduce dotted >> decimal, and only as an afterthought mention classes. Works well >> whenever I've tried it. > > This is of course natural, but have you ever wandered how it feels >for those who learn it this way to force their mindsets into classful >thinking? > >Marko. First, not everyone needs to consider classful thinking, other than on old certification exams. I developed this teaching method while giving a series of courses to a major ISP, which, of course, only uses classless protocols. Second, I do describe classful addressing as a special case, with enforced aggregation to major network "natural masks" at interfaces between different major networks. Students just think of /8, /16, and /24 with restricted subnet masks and no supernetting, rather than class A/B/C (although they are taught to recognize those terms). Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44215&t=43994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Securing a Aironet 350 [7:44152]
Steven, Way off Hmmmthe only thing I indeed forgot to mention is the directional antenna-danger, but to say I'm way off...that's a strong statement. First of all let me clarify myself. My final comment, "Again, which solution to go for depends on your security needs and how much you're willing to spend." basically says it all. As much as we techies would love to be in the ideal networking world where everything came free, this is NOT reality. Networking is here to support business and not the other way around. If in this case the signal stays within the building and our friend is the only one with a wireless card, basic WEP and access-control are all you need. There is no business need or potential risk whatsoever to justify purchasing expensive VPN-equipment. Again, you are right about the directional antenna danger, but if the AP is placed on the 48th floor of a building withouth any adjacent buildings even those won't help you too much. So you're right about WEP not being safe, I never claimed it to be safe. WEP does exactly what it's designed to do, namely provide minimum level security to get the efforts off getting on a Wireless network about as high as the efforts to get on a wired network. The rule that additonal security is required applies to both the wired as the wireless network. To summarise: ideally you would use all the security measures available to secure your wireless network. In reality you decide what measures to take based upon business needs (i.e. what costs are justifyable). Rgds, R Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44214&t=44152 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which Catalyst uses CatOS [7:44107]
If anybody is studying for the BCMSN, or needs to know which models have what CLI (Command Line Interface), I put together a document with the switches grouped by CLI, with a sample configuration of each at www.laganiere.net a few months ago. I hope it proves useful... Thanks... --- Dennis - Original Message - From: "Marco Gaona" To: Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:38 PM Subject: RE: Which Catalyst uses CatOS [7:44107] > The 1200 uses catOS ,it is a little different than the 5000 series, but it's > very inexpensive. Catalyst switches originated from the Cisco, Cresendo > acquisition. The following switches have the same Set-based CLI. > > 2900 : fixed configuration Lan switch with catalyst 5000 sup engine and Lan > modules. > > 5000 : Modular multilayer switch with five slots. > > 5002 : Modular multilayer switch with two slots > > 5500 : Modular multilayer switch with thirteen slots. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44196&t=44107 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: High CPU utilization in using x.25 over TCP (xot) [7:44199]
At 7:11 AM -0400 5/14/02, dovelet wrote: >Hi all, > >Our company's data network just implement xot (x.25 over TCP) to connect >several x.25 devices through a Cisco 2600 routers. Everything is fine. >However, we found that when a x.25 device make several x.25 connections (say >5) to the other x.25 device, the routers' CPU loading was increased to 80% - >90% even the connections were just used to typing command lines (i.e. not >file transfer). The response of the routers become slow. The interface >input/output rate was very low, under 20kbit/s so I think it is not due to >the x.25 traffic. Does anyone know the reason? > >x.25 device ---[serial]--- R1 Ethernet == R2 ---[serial] ---x.25 >device > >Regards, >Dovelet This is normal behavior. The overhead of X.25 goes up sharply with the number of virtual circuits per physical link. Remember that the router has to maintain level 2 and level 3 keepalives, transmitted and received sequence numbers, etc., for every VC. TCP does the same sort of thing. This is old data, but a 4000 router could handle a maximum of 10 VCs at 64 Kbps before the CPU was saturated. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44213&t=44199 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
>It's probably insufficient to refer to the "source" of igrp without >referring to the "source" for allegedly open standards terminology used to >misdescribe routing protocols such as "distance vector" (hint: NOT cisco . . >.). Then again, when referring to the "source" for IGRP, depending upon the >aspect of the technology you are referring to, better choices to depict as >the "source" of IGRP might include JJ Garcia-Luna-Aceves, Chuck Hedrick or >Len Bosack. I don't think JJ ever worked for Cisco. He developed the DUAL algorithm at Stanford Research Institute, which licensed it to Cisco. JJ is now at USC. He has said publicly that he had nothing to do with the EIGRP implementation and his current research has produced better algorithms. Bellman-Ford, like Dijkstra, originated from mathematical research not strictly related to routing. Base Algorithm Protocol -- Bellman-Ford RIP, IGRP, RTMP, Novell RIP DUAL EIGRP Dijkstra ISIS, OSPF, Novell NLSP, PNNI Path vector BGP > >From Hedrick's report: > >This paper really should show Len Bosack of cisco Systems as co-author, and >possibly should also list an > >unidentified lawyer at Townsend and Townsend. Most of the ideas behind IGRP >are Len's. > >Anyway, none of them work for Cisco (and at least one was kicked out with >extreme prejudice). > >While Cisco has a lot of say over what IGRP is and is not, they have no >authority to say what entities are or are not in the set of all objects >defined as "distance vector routing protocols," precisely because they DO >sell routing products. > >Granting them that authority is almost as inimical to a better understanding >of the subject matter as letting them define the structure & content of OSI >layers. > >- Original Message - >From: "Rick" >To: >Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:42 PM >Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] > > >> Priscilla, >> I hate to differ with you on this Hybrid or not but the source says >> it is considered a Hybrid routing Protocol. check the link for yourself >> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/en_igrp.htm >> >> I myself am not a fan Lammle, but on this one he is right and you are >wrong >> and YES I said you are wrong! EIGRP is as much Link-State as it is >Distance >> Vector. >> Rick >> >> ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> > At 04:13 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote: >> > >Lammle refers to EIGRP as being a Hybrid of distance-vector and link >> state. >> > >> > That's wrong. EIGRP is not link-state in any way. EIGRP calculates a >flat >> > routing table that lists networks, distance, and next hop (distance >> > vectors). If the list contains multiple entries for a destination >(because >> > there are multiple ways to reach the destination), the entries are >sorted >> > by metric and the one with the lowest metric is selected. This is very >> > different than how a link-state protocol functions. >> > >> > A link-state routing protocol creates a mathematical graph that depicts >> the >> > network. A link-state protocol implements a sophisticated process, >called >> > the Dijkstra algorithm, to determine the shortest path to all points in >> the >> > graph when the nodes and links in the graph are known. Link-state has a >> > specific meaning to computer scientists. You'll find a lot of good stuff >> > about it if you search with Google. A lot of it is not related to >routing >> > protocols. >> > >> > EIGRP does have some features that make it different from other >> > distance-vector protocols. Although EIGRP still sends vectors with >> distance >> > information, the updates are non-periodic, partial, and bounded. >> > Non-periodic means that updates are sent only when a metric changes >rather >> > than at regular intervals. Partial means that updates include only >routes >> > that have changed, not every entry in the routing table. Bounded means > > that >> > updates are sent only to affected routers. These behaviors mean that >EIGRP >> > uses very little bandwidth. >> > >> > EIGRP also determines a feasible successor, which other distance-vector >> > protocols don't do. Its complex metric is also a feature not found in >many >> > other distance-vector algorithms, (except IGRP of course). >> > >> > Please do not send messages to me directly, especially not to quote >Lammle > > > CCNA fluff. >> > >> > Priscilla >> > >> > >He only gives a brief mention of EIGRP and says to refer to the CCNP >> study >> > >guide for more info. >> > > >> > >- Original Message - >> > >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" >> > >To: >> > >Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:19 PM >> > >Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] >> > > >> > > >> > > > At 02:44 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote: >> > > > >Lamme's CCNA study guide states th
RE: Fw: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
At 4:47 AM -0400 5/14/02, Ouellette, Tim wrote: >Below is some information that i've pulled from Cisco.com > >Summary >Cisco Systems's EIGRP is one of the most feature-rich and robust routing >protocols to ever be developed. Its unique combination of features blends >the best attributes of distance vector protocols with the best attributes of >link-state protocols. The result is a hybrid routing protocol that defies >easy categorization with conventional protocols. > >EIGRP is also remarkably easy to configure and use, as well as remarkably >efficient and secure in operation. It can be used in conjunction with IPv4, >AppleTalk, and IPX. More importantly, its modular architecture will readily >enable Cisco to add support for other routed protocols that may be developed >in the future. > >Enhanced IGRP relies on four fundamental concepts: neighbor tables, topology >tables, route states, and route tagging. Each of these is summarized in the >discussions that follow. > >Other than the fact that cisco says EIGRP was developed from IGRP and they >will redistribute between themselves automatically. I don't see the >similarity between them. I struggle to see how EIGRP is anything like a >distance-vector protocol. > >Tim In the most basic sense, routers operating in a distance vector algorithm exchange routes, cumulatively adding their own costs to a potential complete path to a destination. Because the process is cumulative, it is more of a distributed processing model and thus potentially has less CPU demand. Because it is cumulative, data may be old and inaccurate, which is where EIGRP and the DUAL algorithms have made advances to prevent. Bellman-Ford and DUAL algorithms both are based on cumulative computation. Routers operating in a link state algorithm do not exchange routes, but send along information about specific "balls and string" -- router nodes and the links directly connected to them. A router receiving such information from a nonadjacent router doesn't do anything to it such as adding its own costs. The router will simply pass it downstream to other routers, after applying sanity checks to see that it does not have more recent data. When a link state router has complete data, it does an independent computation of best routes from its own data, using the Dijkstra algorithm and extensions. It does pass routes to the local router's routing table installation process and to processes with which it is redistributing, but it does NOT exchange routes with other routers in the same routing domain. Because the computation is of the entire topological data base, that computation tends to be more processor intensive, but also more accurate, than DV. The computational intensity is the major reason that hierarchical structures are needed for LS protocols, because you need to limit the number of link states entering the computation. Typical OSPF intra-area computational load is proportional to the number of subnets times the logarithm of the number of routers. A major confusion that creeps into this comparison is that update-only mechanisms just happened to be introduced first WITH link state computation, but link state is in no way dependent on update-only mechanisms implemented with hello subprotocols. If you look at EIGRP's protocol exchanges, it exchanges routes, not link states, and it uses a hello protocol, which is independent of DV or LS status. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44210&t=43994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Terminal Server load balancing [7:44002]
What are you balancing on? Have you configured the CSS to balance on least connections because the default is round robin. These are your load balancing options, Round Robin(default),Weighted Round Robin,Least Connections/Bytes, and ArrowPoint Content Aware (ACA). If you want to balance based on least connections, in the content rule specify "balance leastconn" to balance based on connections. Sincerely, Patrick J Greene -Original Message- From: Cisco Breaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Terminal Server load balancing [7:44002] Hi, We have implemented load balancing between 5 microsoft terminal servers. The problem is when I looked at the second server I see 5 people connected but from the CSS view there is only 2 people connected. We tried this example with clearing counters on CSS and restarting all terminal servers to make sure everyone disconnected. After that again we check the statistics and nothing changed. For ex. Cisco shows 4 Microsoft shows 8. All the statistic gathered by issuing sh service summary and sh summary are not accurate as Microsoft Terminal Server Managers. What can be the problem? Any help will be appreciated? Best regards, Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44209&t=44002 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco Certification Digest V2 #2075 (Vacation) [7:44211]
I will be on vacation from 5-7-02 to 5-22-02. Any matter regarding network management please forward to Bob Taylor @ 213-979-0032. Thanks. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44211&t=44211 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ip telephony [7:44202]
Cisco's is more feture rich and scalable. 3Com is cheaper, unless you use an ICS 7750 from Cisco, which brings the price down close to 3Com. -- RFC 1149 Compliant. Get in my head: http://sar.dynu.com ""Jon Mcglashan"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi, > > Does anyone have any information on differences / benefits between cisco > ipt versus 3com ipt. > > > > Jon McGlashan > Diagonal Secure Networks Ltd > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.dsnuk.com > Tel: +44 (0)1256 869000 > Fax: +44 (0)1256 869001 > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. It > is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not > the intended recipient(s), you must not use, distribute, copy or take > any action in reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and > may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please > return it to the sender immediately and delete it from your system. > E-mail messages are not secure and attachments may contain software > viruses which may damage your system. Whilst we have taken every > reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept any > liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of these factors. > You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any > attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely > those of the author and do not represent those of the Diagonal Group > unless otherwise stated. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44207&t=44202 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IDS Questions [7:44153]
Careful with the resets, as someone could spoof a server of your, causing you to send a reset to one of your own servers, taking it off line. -- RFC 1149 Compliant. Get in my head: http://sar.dynu.com ""Cisco Breaker"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi, > > Latest update is at > http://www.cisco.com/kobayashi/sw-center/sw-ciscosecure.shtml > For the attacks you cant do anything other than blocking or reset. You can > change the severtiy level for e-mails. > > Best regards, > > > ""Johnson, Richard (NY Int)"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hi All, > > > > Just some basic questions... > > > > Currently my IDS 4210 is setup to block and do a TCP reset when I get hit > > with WWW WinNT cmd.exe Access. What else can I do to stop this? Also, I am > > getting emailed upon these "attacks". But all it says is the severity > level. > > How do I get what exactly is being done? Lastly, Where do I find the > latest > > update for the IDS? Is there a way to automate the search for this on the > > IDS itself? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rich Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44208&t=44153 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Securing a Aironet 350 [7:44152]
I don't usually contradict what somene says but when they're way off, I need to. First off; WEP IS UNSECURE! It dosen't matter if it's 64 or 128 bit, they ar both just as easy to hack (air snort). Second, MAC address security isn't secure, as you can spoof them. Third, even if you can't pick up signal outside a building with a regualr card or AP, you acn use a directional or Yagi antenna to get the signal. Physical secutity worked for switches because you could truly hide them behing locked doors. With wireless you can't do the same thing. You are correct with the VPN, as it's the most secure way to protect the airwaves for a PC. Other tactics are LEAP, and the soon to be released PEAP (one-time password authentication), 802.1x and the basic SAFE stuff, especially the wireless SAFE. -- RFC 1149 Compliant. Get in my head: http://sar.dynu.com ""C restion"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi Rich, > > First thing to do is to trace the signal. I.e. what are the physical limits > of the RF. Special wireless tools (like the Sniffer Wireless) are available > to help you with this, but the software delivered with your Aironet can tell > you a lot as well. > If the signal stays within the building, 128-bits WEP and an access-control > list (i.e. which MAC-addresses are allowed and which not) should be > sufficient. > If the signal spreads to for example the car-park, additional security > measures are advisable. Depending on how much you're willing to spend, > several options are available. A firewall behind the AP, VPN-tunnels, etc. > are all expensive, but secure solutions. Again, which solution to go for > depends on your security needs and how much you're willing to spend. > > Hth, > Remmert Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44206&t=44152 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE- I WILL BE [7:43969]
OK..lets get it all OUT come on ...deep breath`s...
check this...
not only are they cranky ...but some stupid old manager had decieded to give
various groups our passwords and have locked out there own switch es ...wont
tell us the passwords...which are located in secure rooms for which we CANT
GET ACCESS !!
BREATH.In.OUT.
(by the way i AM JOKING and mean no offence )
CU
steve
- Original Message -
From: "Chuck"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 3:28 AM
Subject: Re: CCIE- I WILL BE [7:43969]
> my favorite story was the company whose network went down every morning
for
> a few minutes just about the time the work force was sitting down, turning
> on their PC's, and getting ready for the day. Now the obvious conclusion
is
> "it's just busy that time of day" Except that it didn't necessarily happen
> every day.
>
> To make a long story short, a couple of power users had decided they
needed
> more data jacks in their area, had purchased some switch or other at one
of
> the chain stores, and dual homed it into the LAN infrastructure. Being
> conservation conscious folks, they powered down all their equipment when
> they went home for the day, and turned it on every morning when they came
> in.
>
> the result was a campus wide spanning tree recalculation every time they
> brought their switch on line.
>
> I forget how the customer told me this was discovered.
>
>
> ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And add to that cranky users who are entirely dependent on the network
but
> > won't tell you the whole story when reporting problems. ;-)
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> > At 09:52 PM 5/12/02, Michael L. Williams wrote:
> > >"Larry Letterman" wrote in message
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > A 40 router lab is nice, but its not the same as troubleshooting a
> > > > production network with 20,000 + users at multiple sites.
> > >
> > >Here here and to add to that. "... a production network with
> > >20,000+ users at multiple sites..." running a variety of multiprotocol,
> > >quirky, sometimes custom-written (read: homemade) applications that are
> > >trying to do whatever on the network coupled with devices from
> whatever
> > >manufacturers that don't play nice ("oh, you need this device in it's
own
> > >VLAN because broadcast traffic makes it crash"), etc, etc
> > >
> > >Mike W.
> >
> >
> > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44205&t=43969
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ARP problems, anyone? [7:44108]
I suppose this would depend on the behavior of PC2. Will it send ARP requests for all destinations if it doesn't have a default gateway configured? If so -- and you have Proxy ARP configured on Router B -- then yes, Router B will respond with its own MAC address, allowing PC2 to communicate with PC1. However, I don't recall that being normal behavior for a PC without a default gateway. I have heard, though, that if you use the IP address of the PC as its default gateway that some PCs will ARP for everything. It sounds like that's the sort of behavior you're looking for. To determine if Proxy ARP is enabled on Router B, use 'show ip int e1'. Somewhere in that output should be your answer. John >>> "Henrique Duarte" 5/13/02 3:50:37 PM >>> John, thanks for the feedback. So PC2 doesn't have a default gateway configured and will send a broadcast for the address of PC1. Since router B is on the same subnet and "knows" where PC1 is, shouldn't it respond as a proxy? -H - Original Message - From: "John Neiberger" To: Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 5:13 PM Subject: Re: ARP problems, anyone? [7:44108] > Unless you're bridging, ARP doesn't function here the way I _think_ you > think it does. > > If PC2 receives an incoming ICMP echo request and it wants to generate > a response, it first compares the network portion of the destination > address to its own subnet. If you're not bridging they will be > different. In that case, PC2 will not send an ARP request for PC1, it > will simply forward the packet to the default gateway. > > Of course, at some point PC2 will send an ARP request to get the > hardware address of Router B, but it will never need to know the > hardware address of PC1. > > Now, if you're bridging then PC1 and PC2 should be on the same subnet > and neither would require a default gateway to speak to the other. > > HTH, > John > > >>> "Henrique Duarte" 5/13/02 2:50:43 PM >>> > OK Networking gurus. I hope you can help me with this easy one: > > > > e0 e1e0 e1 > PC1---router A--routerB-PC2 > > > PC1 can ping routerB (e1) > PC2 can ping routerA (e0) > > PC1 cannot ping PC2 > > > PC2 has NO default gateway (and is not supposed to have one). I've > added a > static arp entry on PC2: PC1's IP address point to routerB e1's MAC > address. Why do I need the default gateway even though I already > configured > a static arp entry on PC2? > > Thanks in advance, > > -H [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44146&t=44108 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
It's probably insufficient to refer to the "source" of igrp without referring to the "source" for allegedly open standards terminology used to misdescribe routing protocols such as "distance vector" (hint: NOT cisco . . .). Then again, when referring to the "source" for IGRP, depending upon the aspect of the technology you are referring to, better choices to depict as the "source" of IGRP might include JJ Garcia-Luna-Aceves, Chuck Hedrick or Len Bosack. >From Hedrick's report: This paper really should show Len Bosack of cisco Systems as co-author, and possibly should also list an unidentified lawyer at Townsend and Townsend. Most of the ideas behind IGRP are Len's. Anyway, none of them work for Cisco (and at least one was kicked out with extreme prejudice). While Cisco has a lot of say over what IGRP is and is not, they have no authority to say what entities are or are not in the set of all objects defined as "distance vector routing protocols," precisely because they DO sell routing products. Granting them that authority is almost as inimical to a better understanding of the subject matter as letting them define the structure & content of OSI layers. - Original Message - From: "Rick" To: Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:42 PM Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] > Priscilla, > I hate to differ with you on this Hybrid or not but the source says > it is considered a Hybrid routing Protocol. check the link for yourself > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/en_igrp.htm > > I myself am not a fan Lammle, but on this one he is right and you are wrong > and YES I said you are wrong! EIGRP is as much Link-State as it is Distance > Vector. > Rick > > ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > At 04:13 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote: > > >Lammle refers to EIGRP as being a Hybrid of distance-vector and link > state. > > > > That's wrong. EIGRP is not link-state in any way. EIGRP calculates a flat > > routing table that lists networks, distance, and next hop (distance > > vectors). If the list contains multiple entries for a destination (because > > there are multiple ways to reach the destination), the entries are sorted > > by metric and the one with the lowest metric is selected. This is very > > different than how a link-state protocol functions. > > > > A link-state routing protocol creates a mathematical graph that depicts > the > > network. A link-state protocol implements a sophisticated process, called > > the Dijkstra algorithm, to determine the shortest path to all points in > the > > graph when the nodes and links in the graph are known. Link-state has a > > specific meaning to computer scientists. You'll find a lot of good stuff > > about it if you search with Google. A lot of it is not related to routing > > protocols. > > > > EIGRP does have some features that make it different from other > > distance-vector protocols. Although EIGRP still sends vectors with > distance > > information, the updates are non-periodic, partial, and bounded. > > Non-periodic means that updates are sent only when a metric changes rather > > than at regular intervals. Partial means that updates include only routes > > that have changed, not every entry in the routing table. Bounded means > that > > updates are sent only to affected routers. These behaviors mean that EIGRP > > uses very little bandwidth. > > > > EIGRP also determines a feasible successor, which other distance-vector > > protocols don't do. Its complex metric is also a feature not found in many > > other distance-vector algorithms, (except IGRP of course). > > > > Please do not send messages to me directly, especially not to quote Lammle > > CCNA fluff. > > > > Priscilla > > > > >He only gives a brief mention of EIGRP and says to refer to the CCNP > study > > >guide for more info. > > > > > >- Original Message - > > >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" > > >To: > > >Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:19 PM > > >Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] > > > > > > > > > > At 02:44 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote: > > > > >Lamme's CCNA study guide states that the courde and exam only covers > > > > >distance-vector routing protocols (RIP and IGRP). > > > > > > > > If it only covers distance-vector, then it could cover EIGRP also. > EIGRP > > >is > > > > also distance-vector. I don't think the test does cover it, but it's > not > > > > because the test only covers distance-vector. It's probably because of > > all > > > > the extra features in EIGRP, such as the diffusing update algorithm > > >(DUAL), > > > > with the feasible successors and all that other BS. Come to think of > it, > > > > maybe I'm glad I don't have to cover it! ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > >- Original Message - > > > > >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" > > > > >To: > > > > >Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:27 PM > > > > >Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually sup
Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
At 06:42 PM 5/13/02, Rick wrote: >Priscilla, >I hate to differ with you on this Hybrid or not but the source says >it is considered a Hybrid routing Protocol. check the link for yourself >http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/en_igrp.htm Nope, the source is wrong too. I know Cisco likes to use that silly term and I suppose they can if they want to. But it's misleading. EIGRP does not have link-state behavior. Did you look up what that actually means on Google? You'll find lots of information on the actual computer-science meaning for the term. It's pretty cool. You have to remember that Cisco came out with EIGRP during a time of political/marketing battles about which was better, distance-vector versus link-state. That might explain their silly "hybrid" thing, but it's technically not accurate and the more advanced exams won't make you know it (hopefully)! >I myself am not a fan Lammle, but on this one he is right No, he's not. Although I know he is just quoting some Cisco material, so what can you expect? > and you are wrong >and YES I said you are wrong! Wouldn't be the first time, but I'm not wrong in this case. >EIGRP is as much Link-State as it is Distance >Vector. Nonsense. In what way is it link-state? Try to actually convince me! ;-) Priscilla >Rick > >""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > At 04:13 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote: > > >Lammle refers to EIGRP as being a Hybrid of distance-vector and link >state. > > > > That's wrong. EIGRP is not link-state in any way. EIGRP calculates a flat > > routing table that lists networks, distance, and next hop (distance > > vectors). If the list contains multiple entries for a destination (because > > there are multiple ways to reach the destination), the entries are sorted > > by metric and the one with the lowest metric is selected. This is very > > different than how a link-state protocol functions. > > > > A link-state routing protocol creates a mathematical graph that depicts >the > > network. A link-state protocol implements a sophisticated process, called > > the Dijkstra algorithm, to determine the shortest path to all points in >the > > graph when the nodes and links in the graph are known. Link-state has a > > specific meaning to computer scientists. You'll find a lot of good stuff > > about it if you search with Google. A lot of it is not related to routing > > protocols. > > > > EIGRP does have some features that make it different from other > > distance-vector protocols. Although EIGRP still sends vectors with >distance > > information, the updates are non-periodic, partial, and bounded. > > Non-periodic means that updates are sent only when a metric changes rather > > than at regular intervals. Partial means that updates include only routes > > that have changed, not every entry in the routing table. Bounded means >that > > updates are sent only to affected routers. These behaviors mean that EIGRP > > uses very little bandwidth. > > > > EIGRP also determines a feasible successor, which other distance-vector > > protocols don't do. Its complex metric is also a feature not found in many > > other distance-vector algorithms, (except IGRP of course). > > > > Please do not send messages to me directly, especially not to quote Lammle > > CCNA fluff. > > > > Priscilla > > > > >He only gives a brief mention of EIGRP and says to refer to the CCNP >study > > >guide for more info. > > > > > >- Original Message - > > >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" > > >To: > > >Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:19 PM > > >Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] > > > > > > > > > > At 02:44 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote: > > > > >Lamme's CCNA study guide states that the courde and exam only covers > > > > >distance-vector routing protocols (RIP and IGRP). > > > > > > > > If it only covers distance-vector, then it could cover EIGRP also. >EIGRP > > >is > > > > also distance-vector. I don't think the test does cover it, but it's >not > > > > because the test only covers distance-vector. It's probably because of > > all > > > > the extra features in EIGRP, such as the diffusing update algorithm > > >(DUAL), > > > > with the feasible successors and all that other BS. Come to think of >it, > > > > maybe I'm glad I don't have to cover it! ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > >- Original Message - > > > > >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" > > > > >To: > > > > >Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:27 PM > > > > >Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, it occurs to me that IGRP would be easy to implement even > > >without > > > > > > Cisco's permission. ;-) It's a simple protocol, for one thing. >Also, > > >the > > > > > > Rutgers paper that describes IGRP has been out for years. Cisco >never > > > > > > objected to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > EIGRP would not be easy to implement without Cisco's bless
RE: bit time [7:44144]
Hi Pierre, A bit-time is the time it takes to send a bit. For 10Mb Ethernet a bit-time is a 100 nanoseconds (10 Megabit per second, so 1 bit per 100 nanoseconds), for Fast Ethernet it is 10 nanoseconds and so on. So if a workstation on a Fast Ethernet network were to wait 5 bit-times, it actually waits 50 nanoseconds. Hth, Remmert Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44203&t=44144 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
At 4:25 PM -0400 5/13/02, Logan, Harold wrote: >You're right about IGRP still being listed on the CCNA objectives. While >I've sometimes found it frustrating to teach an outdated protocol, IGRP is >useful as a teaching tool. With IGRP you can easily demonstrate the concept >of composite metrics, poison reverse, holddown timers, split horizon, and >unequal-cost load balancing, but you don't have multicast updates, neighbor >relationships, incremental updates, and VLSM's adding to the confusion. You make some interesting instructional points that I want to think about. Let me make some observations. No modern routing protocol uses composite metrics, in the sense that a numerical value is computed from several factors. I don't know if you'd consider route preference (e.g., OSPF intraarea over interarea over external) to be composite; I don't. Poison reverse, split horizon and holddown are explained decently in the very readable RIP RFC. Unequal cost load balancing is increasingly deprecated; there are better ways to do traffic engineering. > >If EIGRP replaces IGRP on the CCNA, then hopefully the certification team >will draw a clear line indicating which features of eigrp will be tested and >which ones won't. The way things are right now, IGRP makes for a smooth >transition from the CCNA to the CCNP Routing exam. Someone who understands >IGRP doesn't need to reinvent the wheel to learn EIGRP, I'd argue that other than some similarities in commands and metrics, IGRP and EIGRP are completely different protocols. There is a trivial case of neighbor relationships in RIP, as a router with a RIP-enabled interface will suppress outgoing updates until it hears a RIP query from a router on the medium. That is a form of neighbor discovery. It is different from using a hello subprotocol to know if a neighbor is still alive. Personally, when I'm teaching beginning IP, I start with binary, and then VLSM/CIDR becomes a natural idea. I then introduce dotted decimal, and only as an afterthought mention classes. Works well whenever I've tried it. >and once one has >supernetting and neighbor relationships in his or her belt, they can deal >with OSPF area types and LSA's and the like. > >Hal Logan CCAI, CCDP, CCNP:Voice >Network Specialist / Adjunct Faculty >Computing & Engineering Technology >Manatee Community College -- "What Problem are you trying to solve?" ***send Cisco questions to the list, so all can benefit -- not directly to me*** Howard C. Berkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief Technology Officer, GettLab/Gett Communications http://www.gettlabs.com Technical Director, CertificationZone.com http://www.certificationzone.com "retired" Certified Cisco Systems Instructor (CID) #93005 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44200&t=43994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Slow Links. [7:44141]
Hi Murali, This definitely is a strange problem. I would advise to put sniffers on both ends of the connection (so one between the NT Server and Router A and one between router C and the Win98 client), try to logon and than watch the packet flow for any anomalies. Especially keep an eye on the 'delta time' column and watch for a sudden increase in time. This usually points to where the connection gets 'stuck' and will help you pinpoint the problem. If your company doesn't have professional sniffers, you could probably get the same result with one of the freeware sniffers (Etherpeek, etherreal). Hth, Crestion Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44204&t=44141 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
