RE: L3 Between VLANS- no RSM or MSFC [7:44462]
A 2600 with a FE interface will do trunking and be the router on a stick. I haven't tried a 3600 but it should work as well. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael L. Williams Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 7:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: L3 Between VLANS- no RSM or MSFC [7:44462] But if he's trying to practice doing FastEthernet VLAN trunking. =) But I agree, if you're looking to simply route, get a router with 2 ethernet interfaces and connect one to each VLAN. if you need to route between more than 2 VLANs, then you'll need a router that supports trunking on the FastEthernet port (I know the 4000 series supports this, but not for sure about anything lower. wouldn't be surprised if the 2600/3600 series supported this) Mike W. "nrf" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > If you want to do it really simply, just use a router that has 2 ethernet > interfaces. > > > > ""Phil Lorenz"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I'm looking to mock up RSM/ MSFC type routing between VLANs. > > > > > > > > If my memory serves me correctly, can't I do this with a 4500 (or > > better) router outfitted with an FE module ??? > > > > > > > > Can anyone elaborate and/ or offer a few clues to get me researching in > > the right area ??? > > > > > > > > Thanks !!! > > > > Phil Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44474&t=44462 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF inter-area summarization [7:44465]
Michal Witte Try using area 11 range 137.20.1.0 255.255.255.192 instead. Hope that works. Schwantz ""Michael Witte"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I am trying to do a lab that needs a inter-area ospf summary address > configured > I have two loopbacks 137.20.1.17/28 and 137.20.1.33/28. These are then of > course on networks 137.20.1.16 and 137.20.1.32. Taking the last octet of the > subnets into binary we have: > > 16= 0001 > 32= 0010 > Acording to Doyle and everything else I have read I should be able to > summarize by masking the first two bits. I should be able to use: > area 11 range 137.20.1.32 255.255.255.192. I am not able to and the router > says I have a invalid address/mask. Furthermore the solution to the lab uses > "area 11 range 137.20.1.0 255.255.255.0" which creates a summary address to > all addresses of 137.20.1.X. What am I missing. This does work and I am able > to ping the loopbacks but the math doesn't work for me. I should be able to > summarize the 16 and 32 subnets. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44473&t=44465 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF inter-area summarization [7:44465]
>I am trying to do a lab that needs a inter-area ospf summary address >configured >I have two loopbacks 137.20.1.17/28 and 137.20.1.33/28. These are then of >course on networks 137.20.1.16 and 137.20.1.32. Taking the last octet of the >subnets into binary we have: > >16= 0001 >32= 0010 1 2631 8426 Try .240. You aren't picking up the low-order bits of the summarizable part. > Acording to Doyle and everything else I have read I should be able to >summarize by masking the first two bits. I should be able to use: >area 11 range 137.20.1.32 255.255.255.192. I am not able to and the router >says I have a invalid address/mask. Furthermore the solution to the lab uses >"area 11 range 137.20.1.0 255.255.255.0" which creates a summary address to >all addresses of 137.20.1.X. What am I missing. This does work and I am able >to ping the loopbacks but the math doesn't work for me. I should be able to >summarize the 16 and 32 subnets. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44472&t=44465 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: STP and 7 hops [7:44408]
Look Priscilla, I am not trying to get in a pissing contest here, and I am not trying to "waste bandwidth" (though I don't know if I would worry about that, considering all of the things that flow through the Internet). All I was attempting to do was clarify what I was thinking, and I ADMITTED that you were correct on most of the issues. However, I also know what I have read and been told through the years, and while that doesn't include the original IEEE documents, it DOES include quite a few books, including a number of Cisco books. Perhaps they are wrong and you are rightI am fine with that, but I would like to clarify my understanding if that is the case. Therefore, I will (try) to make some succinct comments on your statements below: Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > > At 07:29 PM 5/18/02, Brian Hill wrote: > > >First, the slot time (64 byte time) isn't much of an issue > unless running at > >100Mbps or faster, and isn't an issue at all running full > duplex. > > Slot time is an issue for all CSMA/CD networks, regardless of > transmission > speed. It is certainly discussed as a fundamental issue in all > versions of > IEEE 802.3 from the first in January 1985. This would be the first time I have heard this statement. I was under the impression that the slot time's primary purpose was to facilitate collision detection. In other words, that the slot time represented the length of time an Ethernet host listened to it's own packet to detect a collision. Is this not true? If it is true, how does the slot time have anything to do with full duplex Ethernet? > >, which necessarily reduces the repeated > >network's diameter, as if a packet collides after the slot > time it becomes a > >late collision, and the original host may not properly detect > the collision. > >I seem to remember that there always being a recommendation, > however, not to > >repeat the packet more than 5 times due to S/N Ratio problems > creeping in > >after amplification. > > I can't find any mention of what you're saying, and I also > question the > premise. Ethernet repeaters do digital regeneration of the > signal. I don't > think they amplify noise. They clean up the digital signal. > Ahah, then I stand corrected yet again. I did a search on this, and found out that an analog repeater simply amplifies the signal, thus retaining any noise caused by attenuation, while a digital repeater actually regenerates the signal, essentially recreating the packet in the process. In most of the books I have read regarding basic Ethernet functionality, they simplify it by claiming that all repeaters simply amplify the original signal, which would retain any noise already present in the original. However, this new information regarding repeating is according to BICSI, which I would assume is correct, and matches up with your statements. > > >As for the switch vs. hub thing, I seem to remember based on > the S/N thing > >that anything that amplified the original signal caused this > problem. > > Regardless, it's completely out of the realm of a discussion on > how > switches behave. Agreed, I was simply trying to explain my original thinking. The thought process was that a switch simply operated on the same principle as a hub, with the exception of the fact that it recognizes and forwards based on MAC. In other words, my thinking was that a switch amplified the signal like a hub, when in truth, neither do...They both rebuild the signal. > > >I also > >remember the distinction that under normal circumstances, the > switch does > >not modify the packet in any way (L3/4 switches and trunking > excluded). > > True, but think about the meaning of the sentence. Layer 2 > switches don't > modify the packet (frame). We aren't talking about signals > here. We're > miles above that. Yes, but I was thinking of the easiest way to do this electrically, again, by amplifying. > > >However, thinking about it, based solely on the switching > mode, it seems > >that all switches (and even a lot of hubs now) buffer the > packet in RAM and > >then forward it, which means, as someone stated, that the > packet is "rebuilt". > > A hub that did that wouldn't really be a hub. The extra delay > would cause a > problem, for one thing. Priscilla, I can't find the logic in this. If the hub doesn't buffer the frame, I don't see any way it could possibly rebuild it. I mean, from what I can tell, either the hub amplifies the original signal (which you and documentation state is untrue), or it has to somehow record the incoming signal (into RAM?) and then send the regenerated signal back out, doesn't it? I am not talking about buffering the entire packet, therby increasing the delay, my thought process was simply that either it sent the signal on, amplifying it, or it stored and analyzed the signal, then forwarded it back out. This is based on my understanding that the signal itself is analog, even if it is represented digitally. In other words, either you ca
Re: L3 Between VLANS- no RSM or MSFC [7:44462]
But if he's trying to practice doing FastEthernet VLAN trunking. =) But I agree, if you're looking to simply route, get a router with 2 ethernet interfaces and connect one to each VLAN. if you need to route between more than 2 VLANs, then you'll need a router that supports trunking on the FastEthernet port (I know the 4000 series supports this, but not for sure about anything lower. wouldn't be surprised if the 2600/3600 series supported this) Mike W. "nrf" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > If you want to do it really simply, just use a router that has 2 ethernet > interfaces. > > > > ""Phil Lorenz"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I'm looking to mock up RSM/ MSFC type routing between VLANs. > > > > > > > > If my memory serves me correctly, can't I do this with a 4500 (or > > better) router outfitted with an FE module ??? > > > > > > > > Can anyone elaborate and/ or offer a few clues to get me researching in > > the right area ??? > > > > > > > > Thanks !!! > > > > Phil Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44470&t=44462 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Passed the written... Now on to the lab!! [7:44442]
When does the new written exam go live( is live the proper term?) ;) >From: "Michael L. Williams" >Reply-To: "Michael L. Williams" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Passed the written... Now on to the lab!! [7:2] >Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 11:31:45 -0400 > >Just a quick note to everyone saying thanks for all of the good info and >discussions. I've been in Groupstudy since I started studying CCNA and it >has been invaluable to me. > >I guess now it's time to gear up for the lab... WOOHOO > >(just to echo what others have said) If you're anywhere close to ready to >take the written, do it now! I took the beta for the new written, and it's >much different. Aside from information on routing protocols, etc, many of >the prep tests and study materials for the current written simply will not >be enough to get through the new written. If you've finished CCNP >(especially recently), the written shouldn't be a problem if you bone up on >some topics not covered much in CCNP like LANE, IS-IS, Token Ring (RIFs and >all of the Source-route bridging methods), DLSw, basic STUN/BSTUN, etc >The depth of routing/switching/WAN knowledge required isn't nearly that >required for CCNP Routing/Switching/Remote Access exams > >Thanks again and wish me luck on the lab (whenever I take it) =) >Mike W. > > > > >Message Posted at: >http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=2&t=2 >-- >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44469&t=2 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: L3 Between VLANS- no RSM or MSFC [7:44462]
If you want to do it really simply, just use a router that has 2 ethernet interfaces. ""Phil Lorenz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I'm looking to mock up RSM/ MSFC type routing between VLANs. > > > > If my memory serves me correctly, can't I do this with a 4500 (or > better) router outfitted with an FE module ??? > > > > Can anyone elaborate and/ or offer a few clues to get me researching in > the right area ??? > > > > Thanks !!! > > Phil Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44468&t=44462 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: STP and 7 hops [7:44408]
At 07:29 PM 5/18/02, Brian Hill wrote: >First, the slot time (64 byte time) isn't much of an issue unless running at >100Mbps or faster, and isn't an issue at all running full duplex. Slot time is an issue for all CSMA/CD networks, regardless of transmission speed. It is certainly discussed as a fundamental issue in all versions of IEEE 802.3 from the first in January 1985. It is also discussed in Ethernet Version 2.0 from 1982. In fact, hold it here.. I also have a copy of the Ethernet memo written by Bob Metcalfe in 1973. (This is the memo where the term Ethernet was first used. It's more than a "memo." It's the actual specs.) Yes, it talks about slot time too. Oh, and here's the original patent from 1977. Yup, in there too. The 5-4-3 "rule" came about when people were trying to design 10Base5 networks, i.e. 10 Mbps with 500-meter thick coax segments in the 1970s and 1980s. The "rule" was an oversimplification of the actual requirements to help people design networks with Ethernet repeaters while maintaining the 512 bit slot time. Nobody used the term "full duplex" or "half duplex" in a conversation having to do with Ethernet. Ethernet was multiaccess. Stations sensed the carrier before sending, and there was a goal that only one station should send at a time, so that's sort of like half duplex, which was a phrase mostly used to characterize a two-wire point-to-point connection between a terminal and a host. The term "half duplex" wasn't used to describe Ethernet until the full-duplex interfaces started popping up. Half duplex was applied retroactively to the older types of interfaces that did normal CSMA/CD. (I just checked the Ethernet Version 2 specification and the original IEEE 802.3 specification and couldn't find any mention of the phrase "half duplex." I don't have them in soft copy though, so I'm limited to the scanning my eyes can do.) >As I >remember it, the problem with the slot time is that at 100Mbps, the slot >time drops to something like 5.12 ms The slot time is 5.12 microseconds for 100 Mbps Ethernet. That is indeed an issue. That's why it's rare to implement 100 Mbps Ethernet with repeaters. >, which necessarily reduces the repeated >network's diameter, as if a packet collides after the slot time it becomes a >late collision, and the original host may not properly detect the collision. >I seem to remember that there always being a recommendation, however, not to >repeat the packet more than 5 times due to S/N Ratio problems creeping in >after amplification. I can't find any mention of what you're saying, and I also question the premise. Ethernet repeaters do digital regeneration of the signal. I don't think they amplify noise. They clean up the digital signal. >As for the switch vs. hub thing, I seem to remember based on the S/N thing >that anything that amplified the original signal caused this problem. Regardless, it's completely out of the realm of a discussion on how switches behave. >I also >remember the distinction that under normal circumstances, the switch does >not modify the packet in any way (L3/4 switches and trunking excluded). True, but think about the meaning of the sentence. Layer 2 switches don't modify the packet (frame). We aren't talking about signals here. We're miles above that. >However, thinking about it, based solely on the switching mode, it seems >that all switches (and even a lot of hubs now) buffer the packet in RAM and >then forward it, which means, as someone stated, that the packet is "rebuilt". A hub that did that wouldn't really be a hub. The extra delay would cause a problem, for one thing. Of course a switch rebuilds the frame. Even a cut-through switch obeys CSMA/CD rules. Even though it starts forwarding as soon as it recognizes the destination address, it does sense carrier first and then monitor for collisions and retransmit if necessary. (It does store the frame, just in case). We discussed this in great detail a few weeks ago. >So, I agree with most of what you have said after all, with the exception of >the S/N ratio having nothing to do with it. I do remember reading that the >S/N ratio degradation was an issue after many amplifications of the original >signal. > >As for me drinking by the pool, no, I am out of town at present At the pool, though? A lot of hotels have pools. ;-) Seriously, there's no point in a having a philosophical walk down memory lane on this topic. It's still in my locally-used cache, plus I have mountains of documentation to back up what I say (not being at a hotel). Unless we get into the bowels of the physical sublayers, in which case I will relinquish my nerd hat, not being an electrical engineer, I respectfully suggest that discussing the other issues is a waste of bandwidth. Priscilla >, and just >rattled off the reply. As I hope I have shown, I did have reasons for what I >said, just perhaps the weren't thought out well enough. > >Brian Hill >CCNP,
book help [7:44466]
Ive recently finished all eight semesters of the Cisco Academy, and im looking for a book or books to help me to continue my knowledge base. Im not nessisarly interested in books just to pass certs, But that will help me in the real world, and go into extream detail, I love to break down configurations and case studies. Here are a few ive checked out on amazon, let me know if you have had any experience with them, or offer a suggestion of your own. CCIE pratical studies (cisco press) Cisco Certificatin (the Caslow book) Routing tcp/ip (the Doyle books) Thanks Jamhampton Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44466&t=44466 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OSPF inter-area summarization [7:44465]
I am trying to do a lab that needs a inter-area ospf summary address configured I have two loopbacks 137.20.1.17/28 and 137.20.1.33/28. These are then of course on networks 137.20.1.16 and 137.20.1.32. Taking the last octet of the subnets into binary we have: 16= 0001 32= 0010 Acording to Doyle and everything else I have read I should be able to summarize by masking the first two bits. I should be able to use: area 11 range 137.20.1.32 255.255.255.192. I am not able to and the router says I have a invalid address/mask. Furthermore the solution to the lab uses "area 11 range 137.20.1.0 255.255.255.0" which creates a summary address to all addresses of 137.20.1.X. What am I missing. This does work and I am able to ping the loopbacks but the math doesn't work for me. I should be able to summarize the 16 and 32 subnets. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44465&t=44465 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: interpeting show int command [7:44459]
r_r/irdshoin.htm#xtocid1 - Original Message - From: "McHugh Randy" To: Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 4:14 PM Subject: interpeting show int command [7:44459] > Does someone know of a link where I can learn how to interpet all the > details of a show interface command? I know its kinda simple , but need to > know what it all means. Like here's an example. The top part is self > explanatory but the lower part is where I do not uderstand. > sh int fastEthernet 0/1 > FastEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up > Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 00d0.ba51.0401 (bia 00d0.ba51.0401) > MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, rely 255/255, load 1/255 > Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set, keepalive not set > Half-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX > ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 > Last input 00:00:45, output 00:00:01, output hang never > Last clearing of "show interface" counters never > Queueing strategy: fifo > Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops > 5 minute input rate 17000 bits/sec, 2 packets/sec > 5 minute output rate 2000 bits/sec, 3 packets/sec > 11696790 packets input, 588816475 bytes, 0 no buffer > Received 27194 broadcasts, 1560 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles > 1 input errors, 1 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 30 ignored, 0 abort > 0 watchdog, 15688 multicast > 0 input packets with dribble condition detected > 10445904 packets output, 1959387521 bytes, 0 underruns > 0 output errors, 1320 collisions, 1 interface resets > 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 9674 deferred > 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier > 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out > > thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44464&t=44459 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: STP and 7 hops [7:44408]
Here's a pretty good explanation of the STP timers, diameter, etc. Understanding and Tuning Spanning-Tree Protocol Timers http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/122.html Much easier to follow than the IEEE standard. Marty Adkins Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chesapeake NetCraftsmen o:410.757.3050, p:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1290 Bay Dale Drive, Suite 312 http://www.netcraftsmen.net Arnold, MD 21012-2325 Cisco CCIE #1289 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44463&t=44408 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
L3 Between VLANS- no RSM or MSFC [7:44462]
I'm looking to mock up RSM/ MSFC type routing between VLANs. If my memory serves me correctly, can't I do this with a 4500 (or better) router outfitted with an FE module ??? Can anyone elaborate and/ or offer a few clues to get me researching in the right area ??? Thanks !!! Phil Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44462&t=44462 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: interpeting show int command [7:44459]
There is useful Internetwork Troubleshooting Guide at: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/itg_v1/index.htm [watch for warp] Depending on interface type, check out appropriate chapter. Most of the things are well explained. In your case, you should check out: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/itg_v1/index.htm [watch for wrap] Hope this helps. Marko. > -Original Message- > From: McHugh Randy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: laugardagur, 18. mam 2002. 21:14 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: interpeting show int command [7:44459] > > > Does someone know of a link where I can learn how to interpet all the > details of a show interface command? I know its kinda simple > , but need to > know what it all means. Like here's an example. The top part is self > explanatory but the lower part is where I do not uderstand. > sh int fastEthernet 0/1 > FastEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up > Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 00d0.ba51.0401 (bia > 00d0.ba51.0401) > MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, rely 255/255, > load 1/255 > Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set, keepalive not set > Half-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX > ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 > Last input 00:00:45, output 00:00:01, output hang never > Last clearing of "show interface" counters never > Queueing strategy: fifo > Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops > 5 minute input rate 17000 bits/sec, 2 packets/sec > 5 minute output rate 2000 bits/sec, 3 packets/sec > 11696790 packets input, 588816475 bytes, 0 no buffer > Received 27194 broadcasts, 1560 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles > 1 input errors, 1 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 30 ignored, 0 abort > 0 watchdog, 15688 multicast > 0 input packets with dribble condition detected > 10445904 packets output, 1959387521 bytes, 0 underruns > 0 output errors, 1320 collisions, 1 interface resets > 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 9674 deferred > 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier > 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out [snip] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44461&t=44459 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: STP and 7 hops [7:44408]
HmmmFor the 7 hop from edge thing, I stand corrected. Now that you mention "radius vs. diameter", I see what you mean. My thinking was that the diameter was calculated with the root at the center (3 switches to either side for 7 switches total). The problem with that is that it doesn't necessarily have to be three per side, it could be 6 on one and none on the other :( Just poor analysis on my part. As for the 5-4-3 rule, I am going to disagree on a few counts. Here's how I remember it (from an admittedly long time ago): First, the slot time (64 byte time) isn't much of an issue unless running at 100Mbps or faster, and isn't an issue at all running full duplex. As I remember it, the problem with the slot time is that at 100Mbps, the slot time drops to something like 5.12 ms, which necessarily reduces the repeated network's diameter, as if a packet collides after the slot time it becomes a late collision, and the original host may not properly detect the collision. I seem to remember that there always being a recommendation, however, not to repeat the packet more than 5 times due to S/N Ratio problems creeping in after amplification. As for the switch vs. hub thing, I seem to remember based on the S/N thing that anything that amplified the original signal caused this problem. I also remember the distinction that under normal circumstances, the switch does not modify the packet in any way (L3/4 switches and trunking excluded). However, thinking about it, based solely on the switching mode, it seems that all switches (and even a lot of hubs now) buffer the packet in RAM and then forward it, which means, as someone stated, that the packet is "rebuilt". So, I agree with most of what you have said after all, with the exception of the S/N ratio having nothing to do with it. I do remember reading that the S/N ratio degradation was an issue after many amplifications of the original signal. As for me drinking by the pool, no, I am out of town at present, and just rattled off the reply. As I hope I have shown, I did have reasons for what I said, just perhaps the weren't thought out well enough. Brian Hill CCNP, CCDP, MCSE 2000 (Charter Member),MCSE+I (NT4.0), MCSA (Charter Member), MCP+I, MCP(21), Inet+, Net+, A+ Lead Technology Architect, TechTrain Author: Cisco, The Complete Reference http://www.alfageek.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44460&t=44408 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
interpeting show int command [7:44459]
Does someone know of a link where I can learn how to interpet all the details of a show interface command? I know its kinda simple , but need to know what it all means. Like here's an example. The top part is self explanatory but the lower part is where I do not uderstand. sh int fastEthernet 0/1 FastEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 00d0.ba51.0401 (bia 00d0.ba51.0401) MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, rely 255/255, load 1/255 Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set, keepalive not set Half-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 Last input 00:00:45, output 00:00:01, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters never Queueing strategy: fifo Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops 5 minute input rate 17000 bits/sec, 2 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 2000 bits/sec, 3 packets/sec 11696790 packets input, 588816475 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 27194 broadcasts, 1560 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 1 input errors, 1 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 30 ignored, 0 abort 0 watchdog, 15688 multicast 0 input packets with dribble condition detected 10445904 packets output, 1959387521 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 1320 collisions, 1 interface resets 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 9674 deferred 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44459&t=44459 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417]
> BTW, how many is too many? :-) Don't know about that, but I heard that one's enough, two's too little ;-) Marko. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44458&t=44417 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Passed the written... Now on to the lab!! [7:44442]
I'n not sure, but the beta was over May 6th, and results are due 6-8 weeks after that, so I would expect for it to change over sometime in July... perhaps August at the latest but that's just a guess. Mike W. wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > When will the current written-exam expire? > > Hamid > > ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > news:... > > Just a quick note to everyone saying thanks for all of the good info > > and discussions. I've been in Groupstudy since I started studying > > CCNA and it has been invaluable to me. > > > > I guess now it's time to gear up for the lab... WOOHOO > > > > (just to echo what others have said) If you're anywhere close to ready > > > to take the written, do it now! I took the beta for the new written, > > and it's much different. Aside from information on routing protocols, > > > etc, many of the prep tests and study materials for the current > > written simply will not be enough to get through the new written. If > > you've finished CCNP (especially recently), the written shouldn't be a > > > problem if you bone up on some topics not covered much in CCNP like > > LANE, IS-IS, Token Ring (RIFs and all of the Source-route bridging > > methods), DLSw, basic STUN/BSTUN, etc The depth of > > routing/switching/WAN knowledge required isn't nearly that required > > for CCNP Routing/Switching/Remote Access exams > > > > Thanks again and wish me luck on the lab (whenever I take it) =) Mike > > W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44457&t=2 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: STP and 7 hops [7:44408]
"Priscilla Oppenheimer" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >The 7 hop limit is from the root bridge > > No. It's from edge to edge. That's why it's called 'diameter'. not 'radius'.. hehe =) Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44456&t=44408 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bitswapping Tool [7:44385]
I wanted to post a followup I didn't mean to sound like I have an attitude, etc with my previous post... I've just always been a big believer in learning and understanding binary (and Hex) from the get go, especially for subnetting, bitswapping, etc.. I learned binary to decimal conversions back on the VIC-20 and C-64 when I was learning to make graphics for games and stuff. So I guess it comes more natually to me. Mike W. "Michael L. Williams" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > The real question is why would you need such a tool. may as well take a > subnet calculator, a Binary-decimal-Hex converter, etc. > > IMHO, there should be a basic binary/hex-decimal conversion and bitswapping > quiz that one must pass just to take any Cisco exam.. > > Bitswapping can be done in a matter of seconds in ones head. I know > because that's how I do it... it's not rocket science > > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44455&t=44385 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417]
This was not a comparison of network design methodologies, it was mean to be humorous (I totally agree with the top down process). The idea of "build a network and they will come" simply does not work! The context of the other book was that no network will function properly if Layer 1 is not designed correctly. BTW, how many is too many? :-) Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Priscilla Oppenheimer Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417] At 08:49 PM 5/17/02, Steve Watson wrote: >I am reading Priscilla's book "Top Down Network Design" for the second >time for a refresher and decided to hit the pool after I got home. Thanks for reading Top-Down Network Design. I hope you had a nice swim and didn't drink too many beers at the pool. ;-) >On >the way out I looked on my book shelf and saw "Advanced IP Network >Design" that I haven't had a chance to look at yet. So I took it to the >pool with me. When lo and behold, what did I read on page 5, "The best >place to start when designing a network is at the bottom". Out of context, this is completely meaningless. What else does it say? > > >Food for thought :-) > > > >Steve Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44454&t=44417 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417]
At 2:03 PM -0400 5/18/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: >At 08:49 PM 5/17/02, Steve Watson wrote: >>I am reading Priscilla's book "Top Down Network Design" for the second >>time for a refresher and decided to hit the pool after I got home. > >Thanks for reading Top-Down Network Design. I hope you had a nice swim and >didn't drink too many beers at the pool. ;-) Why not? Flow control is an important technical concept, and, in the real Internet operational world, there's as much BGP beering as peering. > >>On >>the way out I looked on my book shelf and saw "Advanced IP Network >>Design" that I haven't had a chance to look at yet. So I took it to the >>pool with me. When lo and behold, what did I read on page 5, "The best >>place to start when designing a network is at the bottom". > >Out of context, this is completely meaningless. What else does it say? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44453&t=44417 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417]
Network design is an iterative process. I agree with you that it's not entirely linear. Top-Down Network Design doesn't deal so much with stacks or layers as it does with the need to do a logical design before a physical design. Also, it makes the important point that the first steps must involve identifying the customer's needs and requirements. Sounds obvious, but that's the step that is often overlooked. A lot of engineers think of network design as a Lego project or connect-the-dots game. Many of the software packages that help one do design propagate that thinking. Identifying the customers needs and goals involves many business issues, as you mentioned, but it's also a very technical process. A good network design is based on analysis of existing and future network traffic flow, volume, characteristics, (broadcast, client/server, distributed, errors, windowing), etc. I don't want to rewrite the book in this setting, especially since it's Saturday and the sun is fading, but if we are going to discuss this on a serious level, I may write more later. Priscilla At 01:42 PM 5/18/02, Kevin Cullimore wrote: >Is it worthwhile to re-examine the assumption that an individual should >start at one end of the all-important "stack" and work their way to the >other end? > >As far as the process itself goes (although, all too often there's not a lot >of process or method associated with design, but I'm sure we're all at least >implicitly aware of that), I'm not sure that the undertakings on behalf of >one layer can be as precisely isolated from one another as the data >structures themselves. If the strategy adopted is bottom-up (thereby >emulating many career paths), I'm not sure that one can tackle layer one >decisions without an understanding of they type & volume of traffic they >will be forced to contend with. For those of you who acknowledge data >connectivity layers > 7, the unreasonable expectations & contradictory >demands of the financial backers would probably need to be addressed first. > >Anyway, I'm just wondering if there exist advantages to working out of >order; I'm well aware that certain advantages exist to working IN order . . >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44452&t=44417 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417]
At 08:49 PM 5/17/02, Steve Watson wrote: >I am reading Priscilla's book "Top Down Network Design" for the second >time for a refresher and decided to hit the pool after I got home. Thanks for reading Top-Down Network Design. I hope you had a nice swim and didn't drink too many beers at the pool. ;-) >On >the way out I looked on my book shelf and saw "Advanced IP Network >Design" that I haven't had a chance to look at yet. So I took it to the >pool with me. When lo and behold, what did I read on page 5, "The best >place to start when designing a network is at the bottom". Out of context, this is completely meaningless. What else does it say? > > >Food for thought :-) > > > >Steve Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44450&t=44417 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: STP and 7 hops [7:44408]
At 06:21 AM 5/18/02, Brian Hill wrote: >Steven, > >The 7 hop limit is from the root bridge No. It's from edge to edge. The root is at the top of a hierarchy of switches. Think of the president's spot in an org chart, for example. The 7 hops is from one worker at the bottom of one branch talking to another worker at the bottom of another branch, with data travelling across the entire hierarchy, up to the top and then back down. IEEE says that 7 is recommended. They don't explain it very well though. It comes from the olden days when DEC invented STP. According to one of my mentors Marty Adkins (CCIE low number), DEC engineers said it allowed for conservative BPDU propagation, but also for serialization delay and WAN latency. Their spec allowed one (or two?) bridge hops to have a slow serial link, as low as 56 Kbps. With more than seven bridge hops, a frame might take longer than one second to travel end-to-end. That would cause DEC's LAT protocol (which can only be bridged) to time out and retransmit. If the max retry count was exceeded, the session was dropped. >, as STP calculates the tree from the >root. Historically, I am not sure why it's 7, but Ethernet has a base hop >"limit" of 4 switches (5-4-3 rule), The 5-4-3 rule has nothing to do with switches. It's for repeaters. It restricts the max size of a collision domain. >so it doesn't really matter so much. The >reason for the 4 hop limit in Ethernet is simple: For 10 Mb or full duplex >100 Mb connections, the limit is mostly to reduce noise from the >amplification of the signal as it passes through the switches/hubs, The rule doesn't have to do with amplification and switches don't come into this discussion at all. > where as >in 100Mb half-duplex connections, it is mostly to keep the propogation delay >within specs. Yes. The rule keeps propagation delay within specs. Specifically, the 5-4-3 rule exists to make sure that a sending station is still sending when a collision reflects back from the max size of network when the sender is sending a minimum-size frame (64 bytes). >Hope this helps, > >Brian Hill >CCNP, CCDP, Were at the pool drinking beers with that other guy when you wrote your reply? ;-) Priscilla >MCSE 2000 (Charter Member),MCSE+I (NT4.0), >MCSA (Charter Member), MCP+I, MCP(21), Inet+, Net+, A+ >Lead Technology Architect, TechTrain >Author: Cisco, The Complete Reference >http://www.alfageek.com Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44451&t=44408 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TRANSCENDER AVAIABLE [7:43924]
I need them , tell me how I can get it? --- tran cender wrote: > hi > > > i have the following > > transcender,troytech,ucertify,cheetsheet,boson,learnkey > > > if you need it mail me [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > company exam no: product name > Cisco 640-507 AssociateCert 2.0 > Cisco 640-505 RemoteAccessCert 1.0 > Cisco 640-503 RoutingCert 1.0 > Cisco 640-506 SupportCert 1.0 > Cisco 640-504 SwitchingCert 1.0 > CIW 1D0-420 DesignerCert 1.0 > CIW 1D0-425 E-DesignerCert 1.0 > CIW 1D0-410 FoundationsCert 1.0 > CompTIA 220-221 Aઊ� 2.0 > CompTIA 220-222 ACert 2.0 > CompTIA IK0-001 i-Net৪ 1.0 > CompTIA XK0-001 Linux৪ 1.0 > CompTIA N10-002 Network৪ 2.0 > CompTIA SK0-001 Server৪ 1.0 > Microsoft 70-016 Cꮷ뉋 > 6.0 > Microsoft 70-015 > Cꮷ닚 > 6.0 > Microsoft 70-057 CommerceCert 3.0 > Microsoft 70-152 DevCert 6.0 > Microsoft 70-217 DirectoryCert/Admin 2000 > Microsoft 70-219 DirectoryCert/Design 2000 > Microsoft 70-081 ExchangeCert 5.5a > Microsoft 70-224 ExchangeCert/Admin 2000 > Microsoft 70-225 ExchangeCert/Design 2000 > Microsoft 70-080 ExplorerCert 5.0 > Microsoft 70-227 ISA-Cert 1.0 > Microsoft 70-244 MaintainCert 4.0 > Microsoft 70-218 ManageCert 2000 5.0 > Microsoft 70-222 MigrateCert 2000 > Microsoft 70-216 NetCert/Admin 2000 > Microsoft 70-221 NetCert/Design 2000 > Microsoft 70-210 ProCert 2000 > Microsoft 70-270 ProCert 6.0 for Windows XP > Microsoft 70-088 ProxyCert 2.0a > Microsoft 70-220 SecurityCert 2000 > Microsoft 70-215 ServerCert 2000 > Microsoft 70-056 SiteCert 3.0 > Microsoft 70-086 SMS-Cert 2.0 > Microsoft 70-100 SolutionCert 3.0 > Microsoft 70-228 SQL-AdminCert 2000 > Microsoft 70-028 SQL-AdminCert 7.0 > Microsoft 70-019 SQL-DataCert 7.0 > Microsoft 70-229 SQL-DesignCert 2000 > Microsoft 70-029 SQL-DesignCert 7.0 > Microsoft 70-176 VB-Cert/Desktop 6.0 > Microsoft 70-175 VB-Cert/Distributed 6.0 > Microsoft 70-091 VBA-Cert 6.0 > Microsoft 70-098 Win98Cert 5.0 > Novell 50-653 NWCert/Admin 5.1 > Novell 50-654 NWCert/Advanced 5.1 > Novell 50-659 NWCert/Design 5.1 > Novell 50-658 NWCert/Support 5.1 > Novell 50-649 NWCert/TCP/IP 5.0 > Novell 50-632 NWCert/Tech 5.1 > Oracle 1Z0-031 DBCert/Fundamentals I 9.0 > Oracle 1Z0-032 DBCert/Fundamentals II 9.0 > Oracle 1Z0-007 DBCert/SQL 9.0 > Sun 310-011 SolCert/Admin I 8.0 > > > lee > -- > ___ > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at > Mail.com > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8&t=43924 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417]
Is it worthwhile to re-examine the assumption that an individual should start at one end of the all-important "stack" and work their way to the other end? As far as the process itself goes (although, all too often there's not a lot of process or method associated with design, but I'm sure we're all at least implicitly aware of that), I'm not sure that the undertakings on behalf of one layer can be as precisely isolated from one another as the data structures themselves. If the strategy adopted is bottom-up (thereby emulating many career paths), I'm not sure that one can tackle layer one decisions without an understanding of they type & volume of traffic they will be forced to contend with. For those of you who acknowledge data connectivity layers > 7, the unreasonable expectations & contradictory demands of the financial backers would probably need to be addressed first. Anyway, I'm just wondering if there exist advantages to working out of order; I'm well aware that certain advantages exist to working IN order . . FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Passed CCIE written [7:44441]
I did the new CCDP (CID 3.0) exam a week ago. As I was going through it, I was disappointed with the level of knowledge required to pass. I thought to myself that most of the material covered focused on CCNA/CCDA concepts - which again, is quite disappointing because by the time you do that exam for the CCDP certification, you should already have the core CCxP exams and the CCDA behind you. And some of the questions were complete "gimme's". Mind you, I did like the X.25 questions... -- Leigh Anne > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Steven A. Ridder > Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 9:15 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Passed CCIE written [7:1] > > > I passed CCIE written. In my opinion, it's an old, useless test, and > defintily needs updating. CVoice or CCDP is a tougher test. > > -- > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > Get in my head: > http://sar.dynu.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7&t=1 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: STP and 7 hops [7:44408]
Actually, the 5-4-3 rule has everything to do with detecting collisions. It's a limiting factor of distance so that a collision will be detected within the first 64 bytes of a frame's transmission (also known as Ethernet's minimum frame size). It's preferable to detect a collision before the frame leaves the buffer of the transmitting interface - so that retransmission can be accomplished at the data link layer rather than left to upper layers. Several months ago, Priscilla and I debated the 7 switch rule. If you wanted to search the archives for the entire thread, it was titled "What's the diameter of your switched network? [7:17489]" and was discussed at the end of August, 2001. Here's an excerpt from one of my posts regarding the 7 hop limit: >From other statements I've read (Cisco published material) and from the original excerpt I published, I'd imagine that the placement of the root does matter. "Part of this restriction is coming from the age field BPDU carry: when a BPDU is propagated from the root bridge towards the leaves of the tree, the age field is incremented each time it goes though a bridge. Eventually, when the age field of a BPDU goes beyond max age, it is discarded. Typically, this will occur if the root is too far away from some bridges of the network. This issue will impact convergence of the spanning tree." I'd think that if a bridge were to be the third bridge away from the root, and another switch was the third bridge on the far side of the root, I wouldn't expect to see any problems with MaxAge because I can't see the root being too far from some of the bridges in the network. Now if a bridge were to be the seventh, I could see how that would impose a greater delay and possibly negatively impact the MaxAge parameter. Now my question would be... does this really apply in today's networks or is this more of a limitation of yesteryear's "software-based bridges"? And essentially, that's the conclusion Priscilla and I came to - that the 7 hop radius doesn't really seem to apply to today's switched environments... You might want to check with her again though - Priscilla just authored a new book on troubleshooting campus networks and may updated her thinking. -- Leigh Anne Chisholm (CCNP, CCDP) -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Steven A. Ridder > Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 5:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: STP and 7 hops [7:44408] > > > I believe the 5-4-3 rule is for repeaters, not switches. > > > ""Brian Hill"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Steven, > > > > The 7 hop limit is from the root bridge, as STP calculates the tree from > the > > root. Historically, I am not sure why it's 7, but Ethernet has a base hop > > "limit" of 4 switches (5-4-3 rule), so it doesn't really matter so much. > The > > reason for the 4 hop limit in Ethernet is simple: For 10 Mb or full duplex > > 100 Mb connections, the limit is mostly to reduce noise from the > > amplification of the signal as it passes through the switches/hubs, where > as > > in 100Mb half-duplex connections, it is mostly to keep the propogation > delay > > within specs. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > Brian Hill > > CCNP, CCDP, MCSE 2000 (Charter Member),MCSE+I (NT4.0), > > MCSA (Charter Member), MCP+I, MCP(21), Inet+, Net+, A+ > > Lead Technology Architect, TechTrain > > Author: Cisco, The Complete Reference > > http://www.alfageek.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6&t=44408 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Passed the written... Now on to the lab!! [7:44442]
If I still remember correctly, CCIE #350-001 exam will be replaced by CCIE #351-001 exam around October 2002. There will be an updated and more interesting new technology presented in the new exam wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > When will the current written-exam expire? > > Hamid > > ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > news:... > > Just a quick note to everyone saying thanks for all of the good info > > and discussions. I've been in Groupstudy since I started studying > > CCNA and it has been invaluable to me. > > > > I guess now it's time to gear up for the lab... WOOHOO > > > > (just to echo what others have said) If you're anywhere close to ready > > > to take the written, do it now! I took the beta for the new written, > > and it's much different. Aside from information on routing protocols, > > > etc, many of the prep tests and study materials for the current > > written simply will not be enough to get through the new written. If > > you've finished CCNP (especially recently), the written shouldn't be a > > > problem if you bone up on some topics not covered much in CCNP like > > LANE, IS-IS, Token Ring (RIFs and all of the Source-route bridging > > methods), DLSw, basic STUN/BSTUN, etc The depth of > > routing/switching/WAN knowledge required isn't nearly that required > > for CCNP Routing/Switching/Remote Access exams > > > > Thanks again and wish me luck on the lab (whenever I take it) =) Mike > > W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5&t=2 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Passed the written... Now on to the lab!! [7:44442]
When will the current written-exam expire? Hamid ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message news:... > Just a quick note to everyone saying thanks for all of the good info > and discussions. I've been in Groupstudy since I started studying > CCNA and it has been invaluable to me. > > I guess now it's time to gear up for the lab... WOOHOO > > (just to echo what others have said) If you're anywhere close to ready > to take the written, do it now! I took the beta for the new written, > and it's much different. Aside from information on routing protocols, > etc, many of the prep tests and study materials for the current > written simply will not be enough to get through the new written. If > you've finished CCNP (especially recently), the written shouldn't be a > problem if you bone up on some topics not covered much in CCNP like > LANE, IS-IS, Token Ring (RIFs and all of the Source-route bridging > methods), DLSw, basic STUN/BSTUN, etc The depth of > routing/switching/WAN knowledge required isn't nearly that required > for CCNP Routing/Switching/Remote Access exams > > Thanks again and wish me luck on the lab (whenever I take it) =) Mike > W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4&t=2 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Number [7:44294]
The following excerpt comes from a post by #1026 from a little less than a month ago: The first CCIE, #1025, is/was Stewart Biggs. My understanding is that his certification has lapsed and he's off doing something else. I took the test from him in August, 1993 and became the second CCIE, #1026. The lab itself had a plaque outside the door labeling it as #1024 (a power of two - kind of an inside joke for networking/compuer jocks). - Original Message - From: "Chuck" To: Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:58 PM Subject: Re: CCIE Number [7:44294] > 1024 is definitely a kilobyte. > > maybe the correct story is that the Lab will killya, and it bites. > > > > > ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I've heard this before, and I do believe that the first CCIE# given out > was > > 1025. but I also have to believe that part about 1024 being chosen > > because of the "kill ya (Kilo)" and "hurts (hertz)" is nonsense I say > > that because in the non-binary world Kilo = 1000 not 1024. and > > since Hertz has been around much longer than bits and bytes, I seriously > > doubt any scientist considers 1 KiloHertz to equal 1024 Hertz. =) > > > > Mike W. > > > > "Kunal Bhatia" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Here's an interesting little tidbit I picked off of www.ccbootcamp.com - > > > > > > All successful students receive a CCIE number. The first CCIE was issued > > > number #1025. Number #1024 was given to the CCIE Lab. They chose #1024 > > > because 1024 is a kilohertz - "The Lab will kill ya (Kilo), and it hurts > > > (hertz)." Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44424&t=44294 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NerdHeard.com: CCIEs $$ [7:44319]
Actually John, you're wrong, I am a CCNP. Anyway, I'm really sorry about this post, and I recognize it was definitely a mistake. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44437&t=44319 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VPN ERROR %CRYPTO-6-IKMP_MODE_FAILURE [7:44374]
Looks like the devices aren't configured with same properties. ""Alfredo Pulido"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hello, > > I'm trying make a Fully Meshed VPN connections between 3 (Ra,Rb,Rc) routers > 827-4V, > > The used IOS is: c820-k8osv6y6-mz.122-2.T4.bin -> IP/FW/VOICE PLUS IPSEC 56 > > When I configure the VPN (Ra-Rb), the VPN it's established OK. But I > configure VPN (Ra-Rb and Ra-Rc), the system report a error with the peer Rc, > and the VPN it's not established between (Ra-Rc),however, the VPN (Ra-Rb) is > OK. > > I had trying conjugations (Rb-Ra ,Rb-Rc) and (Rc-Ra,Rc-Rb) and > (Rb-Rc,Rb-Ra) and (Rc-Rb,Rc-Ra), and I had received the same ERROR. > > > > > The system error is: > > %CRYPTO-6-IKMP_MODE_FAILURE: Processing of Informational mode failed with > peer at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx > > In Cisco I had see only this information: > > > Error Message > > %CRYPTO-6-IKMP_MODE_FAILURE: Processing of [chars] mode failed with peer at > [IP_address] > Explanation Negotiation with the remote peer has failed. > > Recommended Action If this situation persists, contact the remote peer. > > > > I had locked many documents in Cisco, but I don't know how to solve this > problem. I shearched a document in Cisco for this type VPN > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/ios_meshed.html > > > Flash Configuration: > Ra: IP VPN: 100.100.100.170 IP LAN: 10.0.1.1 > Rb: IP VPN: 100.100.100.169 IP LAN: 192.168.0.2 > Rc: IP VPN: 100.100.100.249 IP LAN: 10.0.0.1 > > > Debug Information router (Ra) when I try connect (Rc-Ra) (debug crypto > isakmp) > > 02:35:37: ISAKMP (0:0): received packet from 100.100.100.249 (N) NEW SA > 02:35:37: ISAKMP: local port 500, remote port 500 > 02:35:37: ISAKMP (0:2): processing SA payload. message ID = 0 > 02:35:37: ISAKMP (0:2): found peer pre-shared key matching 100.100.100.249 > 02:35:37: ISAKMP (0:2): Checking ISAKMP transform 1 against priority 1 > policy > 02:35:37: ISAKMP: encryption DES-CBC > 02:35:37: ISAKMP: hash MD5 > 02:35:37: ISAKMP: default group 1 > 02:35:37: ISAKMP: auth pre-share > 02:35:37: ISAKMP (0:2): atts are acceptable. Next payload is 0 > 02:35:37: ISAKMP (0:2): SA is doing pre-shared key authentication using id > type ID_IPV4_ADDR > 02:35:37: ISAKMP (0:2): sending packet to 100.100.100.249 (R) MM_SA_SETUP > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): received packet from 100.100.100.249 (R) MM_SA_SETUP > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): processing KE payload. message ID = 0 > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): processing NONCE payload. message ID = 0 > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): found peer pre-shared key matching 100.100.100.249 > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): SKEYID state generated > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): processing vendor id payload > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): speaking to another IOS box! > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): sending packet to 100.100.100.249 (R) MM_KEY_EXCH > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): received packet from 100.100.100.249 (R) MM_KEY_EXCH > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): processing ID payload. message ID = 0 > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): processing HASH payload. message ID = 0 > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): SA has been authenticated with 100.100.100.249 > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (2): ID payload > next-payload : 8 > type : 1 > protocol : 17 > port : 500 > length : 8 > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (2): Total payload length: 12 > 02:35:38: ISAKMP (0:2): sending packet to 100.100.100.249 (R) QM_IDLE > 02:35:39: ISAKMP (0:2): received packet from 100.100.100.249 (R) QM_IDLE > 02:35:39: ISAKMP (0:2): processing HASH payload. message ID = 1758794445 > 02:35:39: ISAKMP (0:2): processing SA payload. message ID = 1758794445 > 02:35:39: ISAKMP (0:2): Checking IPSec proposal 1 > 02:35:39: ISAKMP: transform 1, ESP_DES > 02:35:39: ISAKMP: attributes in transform: > 02:35:39: ISAKMP: encaps is 1 > 02:35:39: ISAKMP: SA life type in seconds > 02:35:39: ISAKMP: SA life duration (basic) of 3600 > 02:35:39: ISAKMP: SA life type in kilobytes > 02:35:39: ISAKMP: SA life duration (VPI) of 0x0 0x46 0x50 0x0 > 02:35:39: ISAKMP: authenticator is HMAC-MD5 > 02:35:39: ISAKMP (0:2): atts are acceptable. > 02:35:39: ISAKMP (0:2): IPSec policy invalidated proposal > 02:35:39: ISAKMP (0:2): phase 2 SA not acceptable! > 02:35:39: ISAKMP (0:2): sending packet to 100.100.100.249 (R) QM_IDLE > 02:35:39: ISAKMP (0:2): purging node -1391497798 > 02:35:39: %CRYPTO-6-IKMP_MODE_FAILURE: Processing of Quick mode failed with > peer at 100.100.100.249 > 02:35:39: ISAKMP (0:2): deleting node 1758794445 error FALSE reason > "IKMP_NO_ERR_NO_TRANS" > > > > DEBUG INFORMATION IN (Rc) > > > 02:28:20: ISAKMP: received ke message (1/1) > 02:28:20: ISAKMP: local port 500, remote port 500 > 02:28:20: ISAKMP (0:1): beginning Main Mode exchange > 02:28:20: ISAKMP (0:1): sending packet to 100.100.100.170 (I) MM_NO_STATE > 02:28:20: ISAKMP (0:1): received packet from 100.100.100.170 (I) MM_NO_STATE > 02:28:20: ISAKMP (0:1): processing
Re: Passed the written... Now on to the lab!! [7:44442]
Congrats, Mike! -- RFC 1149 Compliant. Get in my head: http://sar.dynu.com ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Just a quick note to everyone saying thanks for all of the good info and > discussions. I've been in Groupstudy since I started studying CCNA and it > has been invaluable to me. > > I guess now it's time to gear up for the lab... WOOHOO > > (just to echo what others have said) If you're anywhere close to ready to > take the written, do it now! I took the beta for the new written, and it's > much different. Aside from information on routing protocols, etc, many of > the prep tests and study materials for the current written simply will not > be enough to get through the new written. If you've finished CCNP > (especially recently), the written shouldn't be a problem if you bone up on > some topics not covered much in CCNP like LANE, IS-IS, Token Ring (RIFs and > all of the Source-route bridging methods), DLSw, basic STUN/BSTUN, etc > The depth of routing/switching/WAN knowledge required isn't nearly that > required for CCNP Routing/Switching/Remote Access exams > > Thanks again and wish me luck on the lab (whenever I take it) =) > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3&t=2 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Number [7:44294]
I thought it's "kill-OR-bite". Or maybe you are expected to complete all requirements from ten-to-four. Any more time needed means you didn't make it. Ouch1! Elmer - Original Message - From: "Chuck" To: Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:58 PM Subject: Re: CCIE Number [7:44294] > 1024 is definitely a kilobyte. > > maybe the correct story is that the Lab will killya, and it bites. > > > > > ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I've heard this before, and I do believe that the first CCIE# given out > was > > 1025. but I also have to believe that part about 1024 being chosen > > because of the "kill ya (Kilo)" and "hurts (hertz)" is nonsense I say > > that because in the non-binary world Kilo = 1000 not 1024. and > > since Hertz has been around much longer than bits and bytes, I seriously > > doubt any scientist considers 1 KiloHertz to equal 1024 Hertz. =) > > > > Mike W. > > > > "Kunal Bhatia" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Here's an interesting little tidbit I picked off of www.ccbootcamp.com - > > > > > > All successful students receive a CCIE number. The first CCIE was issued > > > number #1025. Number #1024 was given to the CCIE Lab. They chose #1024 > > > because 1024 is a kilohertz - "The Lab will kill ya (Kilo), and it hurts > > > (hertz)." Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44428&t=44294 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Passed the written... Now on to the lab!! [7:44442]
Just a quick note to everyone saying thanks for all of the good info and discussions. I've been in Groupstudy since I started studying CCNA and it has been invaluable to me. I guess now it's time to gear up for the lab... WOOHOO (just to echo what others have said) If you're anywhere close to ready to take the written, do it now! I took the beta for the new written, and it's much different. Aside from information on routing protocols, etc, many of the prep tests and study materials for the current written simply will not be enough to get through the new written. If you've finished CCNP (especially recently), the written shouldn't be a problem if you bone up on some topics not covered much in CCNP like LANE, IS-IS, Token Ring (RIFs and all of the Source-route bridging methods), DLSw, basic STUN/BSTUN, etc The depth of routing/switching/WAN knowledge required isn't nearly that required for CCNP Routing/Switching/Remote Access exams Thanks again and wish me luck on the lab (whenever I take it) =) Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=2&t=2 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Passed CCIE written [7:44441]
I passed CCIE written. In my opinion, it's an old, useless test, and defintily needs updating. CVoice or CCDP is a tougher test. -- RFC 1149 Compliant. Get in my head: http://sar.dynu.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=1&t=1 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bitswapping Tool [7:44385]
The real question is why would you need such a tool. may as well take a subnet calculator, a Binary-decimal-Hex converter, etc. IMHO, there should be a basic binary/hex-decimal conversion and bitswapping quiz that one must pass just to take any Cisco exam.. Bitswapping can be done in a matter of seconds in ones head. I know because that's how I do it... it's not rocket science Mike W. "Chris Charlebois" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > The question is why would you need to do that. I can see that as a question > on the written, but I doubt the lab will require something so theoritcial. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=0&t=44385 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FXO Disconnect Tone [7:44439]
Hi group anyone knows the FXO's disconnect tone parameters ( cptone and detect-parameters ) in IRAN Thanks Reza Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44439&t=44439 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: VG200 [7:44425]
The 2 WIC slots are non-functional in a VG200. If you want to add voice modules you can only add 2 using the NM-2V. Tim CCIE 9015 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 2:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: VG200 [7:44425] Hello All Anybody know what is the maximum VICs can be installed in VG200 ? I guess only two VICs can be installed in slot 1 which contains the voice network module, but still there is another two WIC , can I swap VIC directly into one of them ? Ismail Al-shelh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44438&t=44425 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: STP and 7 hops [7:44408]
> root. Historically, I am not sure why it's 7, but Ethernet > has a base hop > "limit" of 4 switches (5-4-3 rule), so it doesn't really As far as I remember, this is not true. 5-4-3 applies only to repeaters/hubs - not bridges/switches. R/H amplify received signal, while B/S regerate it entirely. Also, 5-4-3 rule has a lot to do with detecting collisions, which is non-issue in bridged networks. Marko. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44435&t=44408 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IGRP and loopback interfaces ? [7:44434]
Hi, Not really a question but more of an observation. I put a lab together do demonstrate IGRP unequal cost load balancing recently, and configured 2 loopback addresses at either end of the network and advertised them via the network command. I calculated the BWigrp + DLYigrp i.e the metric associated with the distant virtual loopback and found that I was 500 short when working out the composite metric. This had me for a while but as I couldn't alter the minimum B/W for the path i.e 10^7/1544 I knew that I needed to alter the Delay summation by 5000. Anyway, on the distant router I then configured an E0 network and advertised that and found that the composite metric calculation was smaller than that of the virtual interface !!! Which is puzzling. i.e the delay associated with a virtual interface is 5000 micro secs and the delay for the e0 interface is 1000 microsecs. I suppose it has to be set to something though, i.e it isn't a dynamic property and you don't know at any one particular time what the loading on the router will be. Phil. __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44434&t=44434 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bitswapping Tool [7:44385]
Plus, there is no more token ring on lab. ""Darren S Crawford"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > You won't have time. Besides nothing like would be allowed. > > D. > > At 01:49 PM 5/17/2002 -0400, Jason Greenberg wrote: > >Does anyone know if the CCIE lab gives you access to a bitswapping tool > >for converting mac addresses to canonical format? > > > >-- > >Jason Greenberg, CCNP > >Network Administrator > >Execulink, Inc. > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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=44433&t=44385 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: STP and 7 hops [7:44408]
I believe the 5-4-3 rule is for repeaters, not switches. ""Brian Hill"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Steven, > > The 7 hop limit is from the root bridge, as STP calculates the tree from the > root. Historically, I am not sure why it's 7, but Ethernet has a base hop > "limit" of 4 switches (5-4-3 rule), so it doesn't really matter so much. The > reason for the 4 hop limit in Ethernet is simple: For 10 Mb or full duplex > 100 Mb connections, the limit is mostly to reduce noise from the > amplification of the signal as it passes through the switches/hubs, where as > in 100Mb half-duplex connections, it is mostly to keep the propogation delay > within specs. > > Hope this helps, > > Brian Hill > CCNP, CCDP, MCSE 2000 (Charter Member),MCSE+I (NT4.0), > MCSA (Charter Member), MCP+I, MCP(21), Inet+, Net+, A+ > Lead Technology Architect, TechTrain > Author: Cisco, The Complete Reference > http://www.alfageek.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44431&t=44408 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VG200 [7:44425]
2. ""Ismail Al-Shelh"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hello All > > Anybody know what is the maximum VICs can be installed in VG200 ? > > I guess only two VICs can be installed in slot 1 which contains the voice > network module, but still there is another two WIC , can I swap VIC > directly into one of them ? > > Ismail Al-shelh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44430&t=44425 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417]
Honestly speaking, it depends on what the chapter's topic is about. If it's about subnetting, then you work from the core down. If it's about summarization, then you work from the egde up. I guess it boils down to Murhpy's Law: Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit. ;-) Elmer - Original Message - From: "Leigh Anne Chisholm" To: Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:21 PM Subject: RE: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417] > And what's really interesting, is that in the Cisco Internet Design book, it > says to start at the Core layer and work downwards... > > Personally, I'm going with Priscilla! (It's a girl thing...) > > > -- Leigh Anne > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Steve Watson > > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 6:50 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417] > > > > > > I am reading Priscilla's book "Top Down Network Design" for the second > > time for a refresher and decided to hit the pool after I got home. On > > the way out I looked on my book shelf and saw "Advanced IP Network > > Design" that I haven't had a chance to look at yet. So I took it to the > > pool with me. When lo and behold, what did I read on page 5, "The best > > place to start when designing a network is at the bottom". > > > > > > > > Food for thought :-) > > > > > > > > Steve Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44429&t=44417 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: STP and 7 hops [7:44408]
Steven, The 7 hop limit is from the root bridge, as STP calculates the tree from the root. Historically, I am not sure why it's 7, but Ethernet has a base hop "limit" of 4 switches (5-4-3 rule), so it doesn't really matter so much. The reason for the 4 hop limit in Ethernet is simple: For 10 Mb or full duplex 100 Mb connections, the limit is mostly to reduce noise from the amplification of the signal as it passes through the switches/hubs, where as in 100Mb half-duplex connections, it is mostly to keep the propogation delay within specs. Hope this helps, Brian Hill CCNP, CCDP, MCSE 2000 (Charter Member),MCSE+I (NT4.0), MCSA (Charter Member), MCP+I, MCP(21), Inet+, Net+, A+ Lead Technology Architect, TechTrain Author: Cisco, The Complete Reference http://www.alfageek.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44427&t=44408 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VoIP & Netmeeting [7:43949]
Priscilla Thanks for your input - tried all your suggestions but the issue still remains that I get connection in all but netmeeting to a remote phone (in that specific direction). There is something I am missing with the way netmeeting gets relayed and it may be a gateway problem but I cannot see it in this simple scanario. I understand the immediate router to be the gateway and should correctly relay the NM session across the WAN to the remote phone. eg NM12 should be able to call phone 22 - but does not. NM12 can call phone 11 ok and NM12 can setup a session with NM23. Both phones can successfully initiate a session with both the NMs. So there is something subtle I just don't see. I can ping all interfaces and hosts - see route table below. I am replying directly as my responses seem to get lost for some reason on the list. Correction below ie my diagramatical error should have been FXS interfaces not FXO. I have not seen any issues raised in TAC regarding the IOS or NM - maybe because no one would try to implement this in a serious deployment. I would be interested to know if anyone else on the list has successfully tried this experiment. - Scenario as per sketch below G===D G===D /o\/o\ --- Phone No=11--- Phone No=22 \/ FXS \ / FXS -- 192.168.10.0 -- ( A )---( B ) -- -- / 192.168.168.80 \192.168.20.1 / \ __ | | NetMeeting | | NetMeeting |___| 12 |___| 23 / // / 192.168.168.81 192.168.20.2 IOS = c2600-js-mz.122-7b.bin FYI the route table seems ok to me - below A#sho ip route Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP . Gateway of last resort is not set 192.168.10.0/24 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks C 192.168.10.2/32 is directly connected, Serial0/0 C 192.168.10.0/30 is directly connected, Serial0/0 R192.168.20.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.10.2, 00:00:03, Serial0/0 C192.168.168.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 B#sho ip rou Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP ... Gateway of last resort is not set 192.168.10.0/24 is variably subnetted, 2 subnets, 2 masks C 192.168.10.0/30 is directly connected, Serial0/1 C 192.168.10.1/32 is directly connected, Serial0/1 C192.168.20.0/24 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0 R192.168.168.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.10.1, 00:00:12, Serial0/1 B# Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > > Beautiful ASCII art! ;-) > > The thing that sticks out is this on Router A (and analgous thing on Router > B): > > dial-peer voice 5 voip > destination-pattern 22 > session target ipv4:192.168.20.1 > ip precedence 5 > > Why are you using the Ethernet port as the target? Can you ping that > Ethernet port from the NM PC? What does show ip route tell you? > > What happens if you use the serial port as the target? That would be more > direct anyway. > > Try simplifying. For example remore rtp compression and see if that helps. > Remove ip precedence stuff until you get it working. > > Is there something else you're not telling us? ;-) You have FXO in the > drawing. Basic analog phones are foreign exchange OFFICE (FXO). (that is > the phone itself). Such a phone would attach to an foreign exchange STATION > (FXS) port on a router > > Good luck! > > Priscilla > > At 01:18 PM 5/11/02, Edmund Woltynski wrote: > >Hi all > > > >Firstly I have checked the archives & found nothing to help me solve > >this problem which I thought I had setup a working scenario in my lab 2 > >years ago (getting rusty have'nt played with this stuff for a while). > > > >Scenario as per sketch below > > > > G===D G===D > > /o\/o\ > > --- Phone No=11--- Phone No=22 > > \/ > > FXO \ / FXO > > -- 192.168.10.0 -- > > ( A )---( B ) > > -- -- > > / 192.168.168.80 \192.168.20.1 > > / \ > > __ > > | | NetMeeting | | N
