Re: What Order to take..... [7:49345]
I recommend tacking them in the following order: 1-MCNS 2-CSPFA 3-CSVPN 4-IDSPM The 1st one (MCNS) covers general concepts and have some chapters speaking about PIX so it will be a great help as a preparation for the 2nd one too (CSPFA). You can switch the order between the 3rd and the 4th. However, some who took the track recommended doing it in that order. Keep in mind that the last one would be the hardest incase you don't have the chance to install the software because you will have to memorize many menus. Team, I am entering the security track, while I am working for my RS Lab. My question is, what is the best order to deal with the Security track tests. Correct me if I am wrong with the following path for the test to be taken. 9e0-571 CSPFA 640-442 MCNS 9E0-572 IDSPM 9E0-570 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=7i=49355t=49345 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Priscilla Oppenheimer [7:49347]
JMHO - comment below: richard dumoulin wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Priscilla, Do you remember the discussion about IP unnumbered ? Sure you do. You wrote Now, network management is a concern, however. If your serial interface is unnumbered, you can't ping it or send it SNMP messages. With those functions, the serial port acts as an end host and must have a network-layer address. That's the tradeoff. I have found in Cisco ISP essentials book, the following: Many ISPs use monitoring systems that use ping to check the status of the leased line. Even if the customer unplugs the LAN, an alarm will not be raised on the ISPs management system. This is because the customer router still knows that the LAN IP address is configured on the system and is useable . (page 46) CL: sure, but only if the links are numbered. many ISP's use unnumbered and static routes as well. Monitoring is done through other means, either using things like telco tools or CDP and Cisco Works. CDP requires no L3 info to check neighbor health. Way back when, my link to UUNet was unnumbered, but I sure saw their router when I did a show CDP nei CL: the other thing to question is both the contexrt of the statement, or the accuracy. sometimes some of the books out there will contain statements which are accurate in some cases, but not accurate and therefore not useful to make blanket conclusions. when the book says ping are you sure that they are referring to IP ICMP ping? Telco's monitor their links all the time, using L2 and L1 tools. Keepalives, etc. I can call the process ping if I want, if only to put it into an understandable ( for me ) context, but that does not mean that it is ping in the IP sense of the word. CL: what I do know is that it is very difficult to ping a device that has no IP number assigned to it. not using ICMP. Regards. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49357t=49347 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Off Topic - IP protocol scans [7:49358]
I have a piece of equipment connected to the public internet for something I'm doing with a friend. It is protected by an access-list restricting the source address and the particular application. However, in monitoring the device, I am seeing what appear to be not only TCP port scans, but IP protocol scans. I.e. a series of inquiries using different successive IP protocol numbers. 17:43:26: datagramsize=48, IP 87: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=12.246.161.19, totl 17:43:26: datagramsize=48, IP 87: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=12.246.161.19 (Fast 17:43:26: datagramsize=70, IP 87: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=12.246.161.19 (Fast 17:43:32: datagramsize=48, IP 88: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=12.246.161.19, totlen 56, 17:56:30: datagramsize=48, IP 90: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=61.37.239.23, totle 17:56:36: datagramsize=48, IP 91: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=61.37.239.23, totle ( this output is showing the reply my device is sending to the IP's in question. ) at least, I am assuming that the IP XX = the IP protocol number, as reported by the debug. Just wondering if one of you security gurus might shed some light here, seeing as how out of touch I seem to be. This one of the standard hacking procedures? Been around a while? new because so many entities are now doing a lot more to crack down on TCP port scanning? I checked the various registries. The behavior is coming from several places, some Thailand, some Korea, some from customers of ATT.net Just looking to increase my awareness. thanks. Chuck Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49358t=49358 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic - IP protocol scans [7:49358]
never mind - I've done a bit of testing, and it appears that the IP number that is incrementing is a count of distinct events. I.e. if I do a test ping, let it sit a while, and do another test ping, I see the number increment. I gotta get out more. Chuck wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I have a piece of equipment connected to the public internet for something I'm doing with a friend. It is protected by an access-list restricting the source address and the particular application. However, in monitoring the device, I am seeing what appear to be not only TCP port scans, but IP protocol scans. I.e. a series of inquiries using different successive IP protocol numbers. 17:43:26: datagramsize=48, IP 87: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=12.246.161.19, totl 17:43:26: datagramsize=48, IP 87: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=12.246.161.19 (Fast 17:43:26: datagramsize=70, IP 87: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=12.246.161.19 (Fast 17:43:32: datagramsize=48, IP 88: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=12.246.161.19, totlen 56, 17:56:30: datagramsize=48, IP 90: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=61.37.239.23, totle 17:56:36: datagramsize=48, IP 91: s=x.x.x.x (local), d=61.37.239.23, totle ( this output is showing the reply my device is sending to the IP's in question. ) at least, I am assuming that the IP XX = the IP protocol number, as reported by the debug. Just wondering if one of you security gurus might shed some light here, seeing as how out of touch I seem to be. This one of the standard hacking procedures? Been around a while? new because so many entities are now doing a lot more to crack down on TCP port scanning? I checked the various registries. The behavior is coming from several places, some Thailand, some Korea, some from customers of ATT.net Just looking to increase my awareness. thanks. Chuck Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49359t=49358 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Priscilla Oppenheimer [7:49347]
At 6:25 PM + 7/21/02, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote: Theoretically, if you put an IP address on a cow, I bet you could ping the cow. You might need a sling-shot though... for the implementation to work properly, but I'd bet you'd get a response! Doesn't Gateway already put them there? Somebody must, because there's certainly a lot of cow output in many systems. There might be subtle differences between ping and moo. Perhaps research funding is available somewhere for that topic. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49361t=49347 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Priscilla Oppenheimer [7:49347]
I don't see a conflict either. The ISP's responsibility ends at the external gateway router, unless maintenance is outsourced. If the ISP provides the router, it may be responsible for the LAN interface, but not for the reachability of devices on that LAN. More commonly, the ISP simply needs to know that it can reach the customer premises router. At 4:26 PM + 7/21/02, Peter van Oene wrote: These statements do not seem to conflict. At 03:25 PM 7/21/2002 +, you wrote: Priscilla, Do you remember the discussion about IP unnumbered ? Sure you do. You wrote Now, network management is a concern, however. If your serial interface is unnumbered, you can't ping it or send it SNMP messages. With those functions, the serial port acts as an end host and must have a network-layer address. That's the tradeoff. I have found in Cisco ISP essentials book, the following: Many ISPs use monitoring systems that use ping to check the status of the leased line. Even if the customer unplugs the LAN, an alarm will not be raised on the ISPs management system. This is because the customer router still knows that the LAN IP address is configured on the system and is useable . (page 46) Regards. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49360t=49347 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Priscilla Oppenheimer [7:49347]
At 5:25 PM + 7/21/02, richard dumoulin wrote: Well, I interpret it that you can ping the serial, no ? I would assume that. It makes no sense for an ISP to use unnumbered interfaces, because it easily can use /30 or /31 private addresses. It could use a small part of its registered address space, which would let someone traceroute to the gateway. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49362t=49347 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Priscilla Oppenheimer [7:49347]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... At 6:25 PM + 7/21/02, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote: Theoretically, if you put an IP address on a cow, I bet you could ping the cow. You might need a sling-shot though... for the implementation to work properly, but I'd bet you'd get a response! Doesn't Gateway already put them there? Somebody must, because there's certainly a lot of cow output in many systems. CL: actually, both of you are using incorrect nomenclature. I believe the device in question is either a bull or a horse, either of which would more accurately describe the system output to which you refer. There might be subtle differences between ping and moo. Perhaps research funding is available somewhere for that topic. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49363t=49347 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Priscilla Oppenheimer [7:49347]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... At 5:25 PM + 7/21/02, richard dumoulin wrote: Well, I interpret it that you can ping the serial, no ? I would assume that. It makes no sense for an ISP to use unnumbered interfaces, because it easily can use /30 or /31 private addresses. It could use a small part of its registered address space, which would let someone traceroute to the gateway. CL: I have a question about that. Recently I was doing some work for a government entity, with multiple sites statewide. I was doing some traceroutes to ascertain paths and potential security issues. this organization had contracted with a third party of internet services, who also was contractually responsible for firewalls and other security devices and procedures. In any case, I saw two interesting phenomena while doing my testing. One was the presence of private IP numbers in some of the paths. The other was the lack of anything from particular hops along the path. EG the infamous * * * response, although the trace would continue and conclude to the destination I wanted to reach. as all my work commenced from my office across the public internet to the destination, this led me to conclude that the presence of 1918 addresses does not necessary disallow the successful completion of traces. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49364t=49347 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Priscilla Oppenheimer [7:49347]
I gather that the lack of response from Priscilla herself in indicative that she, at least, has some kind of life ;- Chuck richard dumoulin wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Priscilla, Do you remember the discussion about IP unnumbered ? Sure you do. You wrote Now, network management is a concern, however. If your serial interface is unnumbered, you can't ping it or send it SNMP messages. With those functions, the serial port acts as an end host and must have a network-layer address. That's the tradeoff. I have found in Cisco ISP essentials book, the following: Many ISPs use monitoring systems that use ping to check the status of the leased line. Even if the customer unplugs the LAN, an alarm will not be raised on the ISPs management system. This is because the customer router still knows that the LAN IP address is configured on the system and is useable . (page 46) Regards. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49366t=49347 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Priscilla Oppenheimer [7:49347]
It would help if you quoted msg's in your responses btw :) The ISP essentials book does not indicate that the interfaces would be pingable, simply that ISP's can generally tolerate the LAN side of a customer prem router changing state without an alarm being triggered due to the in between serial interfaces loss of ip reachability. At 04:26 PM 7/21/2002 +, Peter van Oene wrote: These statements do not seem to conflict. At 03:25 PM 7/21/2002 +, you wrote: Priscilla, Do you remember the discussion about IP unnumbered ? Sure you do. You wrote Now, network management is a concern, however. If your serial interface is unnumbered, you can't ping it or send it SNMP messages. With those functions, the serial port acts as an end host and must have a network-layer address. That's the tradeoff. I have found in Cisco ISP essentials book, the following: Many ISPs use monitoring systems that use ping to check the status of the leased line. Even if the customer unplugs the LAN, an alarm will not be raised on the ISPs management system. This is because the customer router still knows that the LAN IP address is configured on the system and is useable . (page 46) Regards. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49365t=49347 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mpls-l2 vpn vs. vlan [7:49346]
we are handling a case of a MAN project now. We plan to use mpls-l2 vpn to connect the business subscribers.That means we have to place some mpls-enabled machines on the access nodes(expensive...). Another choice is using vlan.And the users' vlan are trunked to the aggressive nodes.I think it's not so good to do this,but not so sure about the disadvantage. Does anyone have experience or suggestion about using vlan and l2-mpls vpn in the man? thanks a lot. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49346t=49346 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Boson CCIETests [7:49121]
RIF, ospf and bgp... Larry Letterman Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gragido, William Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 7:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Boson CCIETests [7:49121] I am planning on taking it in a couple of weeks, any gotchas? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Letterman Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 3:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Boson CCIETests [7:49121] good score none the less Larry Letterman Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Alvandi Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:Boson CCIETests [7:49121] Sorry, my typo- it should read 86% PASSING SCORE: 70% YOUR SCORE: 86% GRADE: Pass Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Michael Williams Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 8:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Boson CCIE tests [7:49121] Frank Alvandi wrote: I smoked the exam with 869 . . . 869? I though CCIE written was a percentage up to 100% with 70% passing. At least it was on mine. Mike W. - Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49319t=49121 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exam Monday [7:49286]
I just took this exam and passed. It was more difficult than I thought. I have some suggestions: 1. If CCIE is in your future...or if you just want a good reference, buy Routing TCP/IP Volumes I and II. It goes into more depth with better explainations than the BSCN book. ( Although if you are taking it on Monday...I guess it would be kind of hard to buy and read those books in time! ) 2. Know how to configure route redistribution and summarization in different scenarios. Know which commands go with which protocol and under what configuration mode and scenario to use them. This is the area of the test that was hardest for me. Hope that helps. Dain. Richard Tufaro wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Hey all, got my routing exam on Monday 640-603. Any last minute advice. Been using Boson and Transcender along with reading the Cisco book for 503 threw and threw... Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49333t=49286 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Practice exams for CSS1 exams ? [7:49310]
Hi, The best practice exams I have come across for any Cisco exam is http://www.boson.com/tests/routermfg.htm I have used it myself for taking my CSS1 - the only annoyance is, that the CSIDS with PM test is bad. The questions asked are relatively irrelevant, but the other exam questions are good. All the best, and good luck on the exams ! Mike Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49340t=49310 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: need help !!! [7:49315]
Totally off topic, but out of curiosity, does anyone ever refer to Cisco or Cisco Systems in Other forums as Ci$co or Ci$co $ystems? Just a pondering thought... after all everyone seems to agree that Cisco charges the most for their products in comparison to competitors, and that the competitors seem to have Internetwork Devices that are far superior in capabilities or performance in many cases compared to Cisco's gear. ... or is this parallelism just something perpetuated by the *nix community? Just something that struck my curiosity from the subtle tone of ill-respect to Microsoft (usually referred to as MS). No flames please... just an observation. -Original Message- From: Kevin Cullimore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 10:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: need help !!! [7:49315] RS generally exhibits fewer instances of weird OSPF behavior than the OS' associated with their other enterprise products. Given the Redmond track record of porting severely mutating technologies from other vendors platforms, I'm not sure that it's necessary to look beyond corporate boundaries to account for strange behaviour associated with M$ products, although it would most certainly depend upon the types of anomalies observed. Your example doesn't necessarily correlate well with observed RS behavior. Do you have others? - Original Message - From: cebuano To: Sent: 20 July 2002 9:21 pm Subject: RE: need help !!! [7:49315] Hmmm. I wonder if the strange OSPF behavior of W2K was inherited from them. I still haven't found out why the DR and BDR roles in W2K flap like every 45-60 secs. At least when I tested it in a classroom environment. Elmer -Original Message- From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 9:05 PM To: cebuano; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: need help !!! [7:49315] At 8:31 PM + 7/20/02, cebuano wrote: Dear OSPF, Your W2K server has RRAS installed by default, but you need to turn this ON or it will not route, PERIOD. Not even between its directly connected interfaces. W2K supports both RIPv2 and OSPF (I mean, the protocol ;- ). RRAS, incidentally, is a port of Wellfleet/Bay RS. HTH, Elmer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of ospf Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 3:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: need help !!! [7:49315] Dear group ! Do you guys have ever setup a Win2000 server act like a router ? My customer want to connect a branch office to their head office by dial-up from a Win2000 server to Cisco router. I have setup the connection between router and this remote server. I have added route in win2000 server. But surely a server can not forward packets. Help me pls Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49367t=49315 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: need help !!! [7:49315]
interesting question, and here is one possible answer: Cisco is likely to buy a competitor, making the management and employees of the acquisition wealthy, whereas Microsoft has the reputation, rightly or wrongly, of ruthlessly stomping their competition into the ground, and throwing those people out of work. One example used is what Microsoft do to Netscape and to Borland. In those cases, however, MS actually purchased companies that made competing products, and used those acquisitions as the basis for stomping Netscape and Borland into the ground. It could fairly be said that Cisco has indeed stomped 3Com, Nortel, and Lucent into the ground in terms of routers and switches ( although not so successful in doing so in the carrier class markets ) OTOH, Cisco doesn't play well at all in the consumer space. Consumers like LOW prices. :- Mark W. Odette II wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Totally off topic, but out of curiosity, does anyone ever refer to Cisco or Cisco Systems in Other forums as Ci$co or Ci$co $ystems? Just a pondering thought... after all everyone seems to agree that Cisco charges the most for their products in comparison to competitors, and that the competitors seem to have Internetwork Devices that are far superior in capabilities or performance in many cases compared to Cisco's gear. ... or is this parallelism just something perpetuated by the *nix community? Just something that struck my curiosity from the subtle tone of ill-respect to Microsoft (usually referred to as MS). No flames please... just an observation. -Original Message- From: Kevin Cullimore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 10:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: need help !!! [7:49315] RS generally exhibits fewer instances of weird OSPF behavior than the OS' associated with their other enterprise products. Given the Redmond track record of porting severely mutating technologies from other vendors platforms, I'm not sure that it's necessary to look beyond corporate boundaries to account for strange behaviour associated with M$ products, although it would most certainly depend upon the types of anomalies observed. Your example doesn't necessarily correlate well with observed RS behavior. Do you have others? - Original Message - From: cebuano To: Sent: 20 July 2002 9:21 pm Subject: RE: need help !!! [7:49315] Hmmm. I wonder if the strange OSPF behavior of W2K was inherited from them. I still haven't found out why the DR and BDR roles in W2K flap like every 45-60 secs. At least when I tested it in a classroom environment. Elmer -Original Message- From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 9:05 PM To: cebuano; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: need help !!! [7:49315] At 8:31 PM + 7/20/02, cebuano wrote: Dear OSPF, Your W2K server has RRAS installed by default, but you need to turn this ON or it will not route, PERIOD. Not even between its directly connected interfaces. W2K supports both RIPv2 and OSPF (I mean, the protocol ;- ). RRAS, incidentally, is a port of Wellfleet/Bay RS. HTH, Elmer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of ospf Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 3:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: need help !!! [7:49315] Dear group ! Do you guys have ever setup a Win2000 server act like a router ? My customer want to connect a branch office to their head office by dial-up from a Win2000 server to Cisco router. I have setup the connection between router and this remote server. I have added route in win2000 server. But surely a server can not forward packets. Help me pls Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49368t=49315 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCIE Home Lab [7:49369]
Here is the story: Recently laid off from Verizon, 3+ years hands on OSPF/IP experience with all kinds of routers/switches including Cat 5500's, 3640/20's, 7500 routers, 250x, and a bunch of Nortel stuff. I am seeking my CCIE, to keep myself in the market. I have my CCNA, but know that I need to keep my hands on the stuff to learn it. What kind of lab environment do you suggest. Should I buy one that will fit the CCNP or just get one that includes a 5500 for the CCIE? What do you think? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49369t=49369 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: need help !!! [7:49315]
Yes, this is OT, but nonetheless: Mark W. Odette II sagte: Totally off topic, but out of curiosity, does anyone ever refer to Cisco or Cisco Systems in Other forums as Ci$co or Ci$co $ystems? I only know this spelling with a company from Redmond, WA Just a pondering thought... after all everyone seems to agree that Cisco charges the most for their products in comparison to competitors, and that the competitors seem to have Internetwork Devices that are far superior in capabilities or performance in many cases compared to Cisco's gear. Who really agrees on that? There are many cases where I've seen that competitor's devices seem to be much cheaper, but are not in the end. Many bought cheaper products which were working for the anticipated environment. Later, some change in the network was needed (as is constantly the case in every medium-to-large network). The device couldn't adapt to the new environment (be it a new network protocol or a new interface type). With Cisco, you often can upgrade the devices to a very high degree (there are e.g. still many long gone Cisco 4000's in use. Even with IOS 12.1. And another point, which Cisco hammers on in its sales trainings: Cisco delivers an end-to-end solution. Sure, you can buy a better-performing Juniper M20 for less, but your network administrators will have to know exactly one environment if they buy a GSR 12k. It has the same look feel as a 2500. And having worked with TAC multiple times, I have to say that I'm pleased to have seen mostly competent technicians there. Kudos, I know how hard such a job can be. Disclaimer: I'm not related to Cisco in any way except being CCNP and working very much with Cisco equipment (and still liking it). Sure, Cisco can improve in many areas. But I think it will -- or will fold sooner or later. Then we can talk about it again. Best regards, Oliver ... or is this parallelism just something perpetuated by the *nix community? Just something that struck my curiosity from the subtle tone of ill-respect to Microsoft (usually referred to as MS). No flames please... just an observation. -Original Message- From: Kevin Cullimore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 10:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: need help !!! [7:49315] RS generally exhibits fewer instances of weird OSPF behavior than the OS' associated with their other enterprise products. Given the Redmond track record of porting severely mutating technologies from other vendors platforms, I'm not sure that it's necessary to look beyond corporate boundaries to account for strange behaviour associated with M$ products, although it would most certainly depend upon the types of anomalies observed. Your example doesn't necessarily correlate well with observed RS behavior. Do you have others? - Original Message - From: cebuano To: Sent: 20 July 2002 9:21 pm Subject: RE: need help !!! [7:49315] Hmmm. I wonder if the strange OSPF behavior of W2K was inherited from them. I still haven't found out why the DR and BDR roles in W2K flap like every 45-60 secs. At least when I tested it in a classroom environment. Elmer -Original Message- From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 9:05 PM To: cebuano; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: need help !!! [7:49315] At 8:31 PM + 7/20/02, cebuano wrote: Dear OSPF, Your W2K server has RRAS installed by default, but you need to turn this ON or it will not route, PERIOD. Not even between its directly connected interfaces. W2K supports both RIPv2 and OSPF (I mean, the protocol ;- ). RRAS, incidentally, is a port of Wellfleet/Bay RS. HTH, Elmer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of ospf Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 3:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: need help !!! [7:49315] Dear group ! Do you guys have ever setup a Win2000 server act like a router ? My customer want to connect a branch office to their head office by dial-up from a Win2000 server to Cisco router. I have setup the connection between router and this remote server. I have added route in win2000 server. But surely a server can not forward packets. Help me pls Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Oliver Hensel telematis Netzwerke GmbH mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Siemensstrasse 23, D-76275 Ettlingen Tel: +49 (0) 7243/5050-557, Fax: 5050-592 visit us: http://telematis.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49371t=49315 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
