RE: ccnp routing [7:54579]
I wish I had more hands on with OSPF, but as we are mainly a Cisco shop, there has not been much call for it. Whoops, you may have misunderstood my email - the exam (in my case) focussed mainly on IS-IS, OSPF and BGP. Even as I said IS-IS was approx 10 questions, the same would have been for OSPF and BGP. I guess I focussed on the IS-IS as it is a recent component and was my weakness. Thanks for the congratualtions. It has been nice to take a breather and do some study for a change. My last job of almost 4 years was INTENSIVE hands on as a Network Specialist. It was so gruelling I just had no energy left to study (or do much else). It really killed my hairline but gave me a hands on opportunity to the extent that I may not see again. Warriors underdog indeed! cheers Simon Dartford Design Engineer Advanced Solutions Telecom New Zealand Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +64 4 382-5453 Fax: +64 4 385-1223 Mobile: 025 243 7989 Important: This electronic message and attachments (if any) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please let us know by return email immediately and then destroy this message. -Original Message- From: John Brandis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:44 To: Simon Dartford; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ccnp routing [7:54579] Wow, I am the opposite. I use OSPF as much as possible here, mainly due to the fact I had used it whilst in my early stages of networking. I really like OSPF and love how it it scales nicely in my networks. I honestly thought that a large portion of the routing test would be focused on OSPF. Guess I am wrong (again). Good luck and conratulations on your score. Hope the NZ Warriors have similar luck on Sunday night. John -Original Message- From: Simon Dartford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ccnp routing [7:54579] I sat this yesterday! It is a bit differnet, and in my opinion, better. Better because there is actual router simulation involved. I had to configure OSPF on one! I was caught out on IS-IS as I only started to study that at 6am the morning on the exam. My diligence was rewarded with %20 on IS-IS content. I fared better overall and go an excellent overall score (considering my performance on IS-IS). It focussed mainly on IS-IS (approx 10 questions), OSPF and BGP. Very little on EIGRP. I have only really ever configured EIGRP and BGP and I still did ok. Never seen OSPF before or since! I studied for one week beforehand. I used the old Ciscopress 503 exam guide. This was ok and went into more depth than the exam did. I borrowed the course notes for the IS-IS content, but did not retain anything much in the hour between 6am and 7am! IMHO, you will be fine with having done the course and a bit of revision. Some have said in cramsession it was way hard - only hard if you have not prepared well! I relied on my practical experience and just browsed the book. In the final 10 minutes, I was sure I had failed, as all the IS-IS questions were at the end. I was running through my head when I should resit, only to be surprised (really surprised...) that I had passed! Hope this info is helpful Simon Dartford Design Engineer Advanced Solutions Telecom New Zealand Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +64 4 382-5453 Fax: +64 4 385-1223 Mobile: 025 243 7989 Important: This electronic message and attachments (if any) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please let us know by return email immediately and then destroy this message. -Original Message- From: Jesus Velazquez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2002 10:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ccnp routing [7:54579] i'm sitting in on the routing 901 bsci (new exam) next week...any good advice or look outs for the exam?? i took the global knowledge course 2 weeks ago and have the older version of the boson routing for exam 603. should this be suffice. i heard the cisco press routing book is not a very good book for this course. thanks - "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you." - - [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of Simon Dartford (E-mail).vcf] ** visit http://www.solution6.com UK Customers - http://www.solution6.co.uk * This email message (and attachments) may conta
Re: Backbone ? [7:54590]
If it is connected to another network, then it is a backbone between the two network rite? Else if it is connect to the Internet, there will not be any backbone in the network? Rite? Correct me if wrong. Sorry, me new in this line. So have to seek advice from you all. Cheers, Jimmy ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Jimmy wrote: > > > > Hi, > > Just want to clarify something. Let say i have middle-size > > network which all > > the switches (around 4) connected together to a router. The > > backbone of the > > network should be the toward the WAN side which is from the > > router onsward > > rite? Or is it the connection from the switch to the router? > > > > > > > > Switch-Switch 1--\ > > Hub -Switch 2---\ > > Switch-Switch 3---/ Router -- (Backbone) > > Hub-Switch 4--/ > > > > It's hard to say, but it looks like you have a collapsed backbone and it's > the router. When multiple links converge into one device, such as a switch > or router, then it's often called a collapsed backbone. > > Where does the WAN go? If it just accesses another network, such as the > Internet, then it wouldn't normally be called a backbone. But if you have an > enterprise network with a core of WAN links that connect campus LANs, you > could call the WAN core the backbone of the enterprise network. > > Usually a backbone has more capacity than the other links in the network, > however, and so usually a WAN link doesn't act as a backbone for LANs. A > more usual use of the term would be a Gigabit Ethernet backbone that acts as > the backbone for 10 and 100 Mbps Ethernet segments. > > It's not really a scientific term, though, and it gets used in many > different ways. The idea is that when you draw your topolgoy, you will > undoubtedly have some larger transmission link that aggregates traffic from > smaller links. That larger link is a backbone. The drawing should look like > the bone in your back that connects other bones. It's just an analogy. > > Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54617&t=54590 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Redundant Switches [7:54614]
""Azhar Teza"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have a customer who has (1) 6509 backbone switches which is also acting > as a root bridge. (7) 3524 are connect back to 6509 via fiber each as a > seperate unit. At this point, if 6509 fails whole network will go down. I > suggested to have an additional switch run in standby mode as a backup > backbone switch. Customer doesn't want to spend around 40,000 to buy a 2nd > 6509 switch. CL: only 40K for a backup 6509? I don't have my price book handy, but that seems really low ;-> Can the backup switch be another Catalyst say 4000 or does it > have to be the exact same model. I know the performance will be downgraded > since 4000 series don't have the same switching backplane as opposed to > 6509, but still it should take over as a root bridge incase 6509 goes > down. In this configuration, the only thing they will have to do is to > move their servers to the 4006 switch until the 6509 comes back online. All > I need to make sure that the both 6509 and 4006 switch have the same > configuration. Is there anything I am missing, please shed some lights > guys. Teza > > > Changed your e-mail? Keep your contacts! Use this free e-mail change of > address service from Return Path. Register now! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54616&t=54614 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Redundant Switches [7:54614]
interesting question - a thought or two in line ""Azhar Teza"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have a customer who has (1) 6509 backbone switches which is also acting > as a root bridge. (7) 3524 are connect back to 6509 via fiber each as a > seperate unit. At this point, if 6509 fails whole network will go down. I > suggested to have an additional switch run in standby mode as a backup > backbone switch. Customer doesn't want to spend around 40,000 to buy a 2nd > 6509 switch. Can the backup switch be another Catalyst say 4000 or does it > have to be the exact same model. I know the performance will be downgraded > since 4000 series don't have the same switching backplane as opposed to > 6509, but still it should take over as a root bridge incase 6509 goes > down. In this configuration, the only thing they will have to do is to > move their servers to the 4006 switch until the 6509 comes back online. All > I need to make sure that the both 6509 and 4006 switch have the same > configuration. Is there anything I am missing, please shed some lights > guys. Teza CL: what kind of failure are you protecting against? I understand that everything homes back into the 6509. I'm just wondering about the connectivy requirements. CL: servers connect to what? CL: other essential services connect to what? CL: to protect against single points of failure, you will need to consider the following: 1) redundant 6509 2) dual homing of servers 3) dual homing of all other switches, to each of the two 6509's CL: if that is too pricy, another thought might be this: 1) segment all servers onto their own switch - a 3550-24 or 48 or 12 - whichever is appropirate. 2) get a 3550-12G, make it the root bridge, and dual home the server switch to both the 3550-12G and the 6509. Now, if the 6509 fails, other segments will have connectivity to the servers. If the 3550-12G fails, the 6509 allows server connectivity to those connected to it. 3) dual home all your closet switches to the 3550-12G and to the 6509. CL: under this scneario, you still have a single point of failure in the box that the servers are connected to. of course, the world is a single point of failure ;-> CL: just a thought. maybe not the best idea, but certainly effective and inexpensive. > > > Changed your e-mail? Keep your contacts! Use this free e-mail change of > address service from Return Path. Register now! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54615&t=54614 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redundant Switches [7:54614]
I have a customer who has (1) 6509 backbone switches which is also acting as a root bridge. (7) 3524 are connect back to 6509 via fiber each as a seperate unit. At this point, if 6509 fails whole network will go down. I suggested to have an additional switch run in standby mode as a backup backbone switch. Customer doesn't want to spend around 40,000 to buy a 2nd 6509 switch. Can the backup switch be another Catalyst say 4000 or does it have to be the exact same model. I know the performance will be downgraded since 4000 series don't have the same switching backplane as opposed to 6509, but still it should take over as a root bridge incase 6509 goes down. In this configuration, the only thing they will have to do is to move their servers to the 4006 switch until the 6509 comes back online. All I need to make sure that the both 6509 and 4006 switch have the same configuration. Is there anything I am missing, please shed some lights guys. Teza Changed your e-mail? Keep your contacts! Use this free e-mail change of address service from Return Path. Register now! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54614&t=54614 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > >I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require IP at snip a bit > > I've been involved in Formal International Standards Bodies, where > the Camel was developed as a functional specification for a Mouse. > The market and the world are far faster than the carriers would like > it to be. > > When I worked for a primarily carrier-oriented vendor, there were > deep emotions that they could make IP go away with: > (1) Ubiquitous fiber > (2) Apparently manually provisioned MPLS, since they equated the topology > to something of equal complexity and hierarchy to what you can do in > SS#7. CL: not that the top bananas at the various telcos ever talk to me about it, but I sure have the distinct impression that telcos in general still believe without question that L3 devices are just boxes that plug into telco networks. L3 switch, router, CSU, modem, analogue telephone - they're all the same to a telco, or so it appears to me. hell, even Qwest, which started out as an innovative transport carrier / CLEC, went and bought themselves a telco and now look at them :-> > snip a bit > > What do you propose as a scalable alternative that doesn't simply > meet telephony needs? > CL: the question is really "why should a telco care, so long as you buy whatever it is they want to sell you?" of all the ironies, these days it seems like my employer's biggest foil is former parent AT&T, who are in our faces trying to steal all our customers by offering dark fiber - something we don't want to do because there's nothing in it for us. AT&T the telco is still selling lines - only they aren't lit. So what does AT&T care about MPLS, if what they sell is dark? My employer, on the other hand, wants to sell SONET and gigaman. What do we care about MPLS, just so long as you buy. CL: Like I said, not that I know a lot about running a telco, but what's in it for the telco? snip Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54613&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: router boots in to rommon [7:54591]
Hi Had the same error recently on a 4500. Swapped memory sticks (flash & ram) with the same results. We raised a TAC call with Cisco, and were advised that the backplane was faulty. Regards, John Botha MCSE, CCNA,CCNP,CCDA,CCDP CS IT Solutions Tel: +27 (0) 11 686-6257 Fax: +27 (0) 11 686-6269 Cell: 082 334 8267 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Adding Value to IT -Original Message- From: nettable_walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 01 October 2002 03:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: router boots in to rommon [7:54591] Thank you I already swapped memory once, but I will try it again. ""Kim Graham"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Check your flash for crash info files. You can read through these and or > download them to add to your TAC case. You have a memory error and may need > to swap out a stick of memory. > > Searching "Cache Error Exception 4700" and "Cache Parity Exception 4500" > separately gives you many links that will help you to understand what is > happening. You do not need a CCO account to do this search. > > Kim Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54612&t=54591 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why my input error and CRC always same [7:54516]
Yes.. It is not due to duplex mismatch, as I had fixed both sides to 100 full duplex and if I switch to autodetect, the collision error will appear. I had patched the cables to other switches ports, but the problem follows. All the problem PCs are quite near to each other as there are all in the same floor. Other PCs in other floor doesn't seems to have problems. All the PCs run thru the internal cabling thru the wall (from the users room to the servers room). But why previously, we don't have these intermittent disconnection problems? Besides, I think we also running similar business application like reuters and bloomberg as they are all from same department. What do you mean by upper layer problem and what is causing the noise? Any suggestion to solve it? Thank you -Original Message- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: why my input error and CRC always same [7:54516] . But, in this case, all the errors are CRC errors. This doesn't seem like a duplex mismatch problem, then. If it were, we would expect to see runts and collisions too, depending on the exact misconfiguration. Just seeing CRC errors indicates noise or a hardware problem. Are all these ports physically near each other? What else are they near? A motor of some sort? Are all the connected PCs near each other, or does their cabling travel together through an area where there could be noise? Could you move cables to different ports and see if the problem follows? On the other hand... Have you also troubleshooted above the physical and data-link layers. Of course, it makes sense to start at the lower layers, but. Notice that your reliability is 255/255 (100%). Cisco's calculations are trying to tell you that there isn't really a problem, at least there hasn't been a problem recently. The reliability is an exponential average over 5 minutes. The port has only seen 152 CRC errors in about 6 days. (See Last clearing of "show interface" counters 5d21h.) That's pretty insignificant. In that same time, the port received about 3 million packets. That's really a pretty low error rate. I would clear the counters, to start with, and see if the errors creep up regularly, are bunched together all at once, etc. Also, put a sniffer on the network and troubleshoot the disconnection problem. My gut feeling is that it's an upper-layer problem, but I don't have quite enough data to say this for sure. ___ Priscilla Oppenheimer www.troubleshootingnetworks.com www.priscilla.com > ""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Packet Errors > > If you have a large amount of alignment errors, FCS errors, > or late > > collisions, this may indicate: > > > > > > Duplex mismatch > > > > Bad NICs > > > > Cable problems (causing mangled packets, flapping ports, and > so on) > > > > For more information on duplex mismatch errors, see > Configuring and > > Troubleshooting Ethernet 10/100Mb Half/Full Duplex > Auto-Negotiation. The > > most common issue with speed/duplex is that customers > manually set the > > speed/duplex on the switch, but not on the > workstation/server. Auto > > speed/duplex on one side and 100/Full-duplex on the other > side is a > > misconfiguration and will result in a duplex mismtach. > > > > Larry Letterman > > Cisco Systems > > > > > > Sim, CT (Chee Tong) wrote: > > > > >Hi.. Some users complaint to me that their application > getting > > >disconnection. I have fixed the speed and duplex of their > switch port at > > >both sides and changed the cable but still the same. And the > strange > thing > > >is that all the problem ports are all having the same error > pattern-same > > >number of input errors and CRC. The rest of errors are all > zero-as shown > > >below.Those other ports that have different number input > errors and > CRC > > >are not having disconnection problem. Any idea what can I > do on those > > >ports that having disconnection problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >SW4>sh int fas0/21 > > > > > >FastEthernet0/21 is up, line protocol is up > > > > > > Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 00d0.790c.d315 (bia > 00d0.790c.d315) > > > > > > MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, > > > > > > reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 > > > > > > Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set > > > > > > Keepalive not set > > > > > > Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX > > > > > > ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 > > > > > > Last input never, output 00:00:00, output hang never > > > > > > Last clearing of "show interface" counters 5d21h > > > > > > Queueing strategy: fifo > > > > > > Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops > > > > > > 5 minute input rate 2000 bits/sec, 5 packets/sec > > > > > > 5 minute output rate 52000 bits/se
RE: Passed MCNS, PIX and VPN! [7:54607]
Dain, Congrats! I can see that you are still hitting them! Congrats!! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54610&t=54607 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wireless LAN Exam [7:54608]
Hi, Can any one suggest good books/ URL for the Wireless LAN exam, as the part of Partner Specialization program. Thanks in Advance. Regards... Anil __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54608&t=54608 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Passed MCNS, PIX and VPN! [7:54607]
Hey everyone... I passed MCNS, PIX and VPN last week! Just letting everyone know that this group is a great learning resource and I use it all the time...it helps! Thanks! -- Dain Deutschman CNA, MCP, CCNA Data Communications Manager New Star Sales and Service, Inc. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54607&t=54607 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ccnp routing [7:54579]
Wow, I am the opposite. I use OSPF as much as possible here, mainly due to the fact I had used it whilst in my early stages of networking. I really like OSPF and love how it it scales nicely in my networks. I honestly thought that a large portion of the routing test would be focused on OSPF. Guess I am wrong (again). Good luck and conratulations on your score. Hope the NZ Warriors have similar luck on Sunday night. John -Original Message- From: Simon Dartford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ccnp routing [7:54579] I sat this yesterday! It is a bit differnet, and in my opinion, better. Better because there is actual router simulation involved. I had to configure OSPF on one! I was caught out on IS-IS as I only started to study that at 6am the morning on the exam. My diligence was rewarded with %20 on IS-IS content. I fared better overall and go an excellent overall score (considering my performance on IS-IS). It focussed mainly on IS-IS (approx 10 questions), OSPF and BGP. Very little on EIGRP. I have only really ever configured EIGRP and BGP and I still did ok. Never seen OSPF before or since! I studied for one week beforehand. I used the old Ciscopress 503 exam guide. This was ok and went into more depth than the exam did. I borrowed the course notes for the IS-IS content, but did not retain anything much in the hour between 6am and 7am! IMHO, you will be fine with having done the course and a bit of revision. Some have said in cramsession it was way hard - only hard if you have not prepared well! I relied on my practical experience and just browsed the book. In the final 10 minutes, I was sure I had failed, as all the IS-IS questions were at the end. I was running through my head when I should resit, only to be surprised (really surprised...) that I had passed! Hope this info is helpful Simon Dartford Design Engineer Advanced Solutions Telecom New Zealand Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +64 4 382-5453 Fax: +64 4 385-1223 Mobile: 025 243 7989 Important: This electronic message and attachments (if any) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please let us know by return email immediately and then destroy this message. -Original Message- From: Jesus Velazquez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2002 10:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ccnp routing [7:54579] i'm sitting in on the routing 901 bsci (new exam) next week...any good advice or look outs for the exam?? i took the global knowledge course 2 weeks ago and have the older version of the boson routing for exam 603. should this be suffice. i heard the cisco press routing book is not a very good book for this course. thanks - "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you." - - [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of Simon Dartford (E-mail).vcf] ** visit http://www.solution6.com UK Customers - http://www.solution6.co.uk * This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to Solution 6. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of Solution 6 are neither given nor endorsed by it. * Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54605&t=54579 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
> > > > I've been involved in Formal International Standards Bodies, where > the Camel was developed as a functional specification for a Mouse. > The market and the world are far faster than the carriers would like > it to be. Here I must disagree. The fact is the traditional carriers basically are the market, in the sense that they are the ones with money to spend. It doesn't really matter if the standards bodies come up with all sorts of cool and funky technologies if nobody implements them. The only providers who are really in a position to implement much of anything these days are the traditional carriers because they are the only ones who actually have money (practically all of the pure Internet service-providers are bleeding red ink everywhere). And those traditional carriers are only going to implement something to the degree that it is profitable to do so. Which is why I am concerned for the future of MPLS. In its original conception, MPLS offered the promise for a generalized control-plane that could potentially span all the gear that a carrier has to run. A Grand Unified Theory of networking, if you will. Now, it has become IP-centric, and Internet-centric in particular (i.e. the involvement of the IETF).But the fact of the matter is that IP services in general, and the Internet in particular, are still highly unprofitable for the carriers. Untold billions have been spent on carrier Internet infrastructure with nary a hope of ever getting a semi-reasonable return on investment. The Internet has become a godsend to the consumer but a financial nightmare for the carriers. Which is why I believe that any new carrier-style technology that is directed towards the Internet will achieve unnecessarily slow adoption by the carriers. Now don't get me wrong, MPLS will be adopted, the real question is how quickly. If much of the work on MPLS is done mostly on IP and Internet features, and not on the more traditional telco features, this will slow the adoption of MPLS. Traditional carriers are not exactly champing at the bit to spend money adopting new Internet technology now that financial sanity has returned to the fold (notice how so many carriers are cancelling or slowing their Internet buildouts?). > > When I worked for a primarily carrier-oriented vendor, there were > deep emotions that they could make IP go away with: > (1) Ubiquitous fiber > (2) Apparently manually provisioned MPLS, since they equated the topology > to something of equal complexity and hierarchy to what you can do in > SS#7. > > >MPLS has potentially far more applicability than just in the Internet (for > >those who didn't catch it, the 'I' in IETF stands for Internet). For > >example, MPLS has tremendous potential for all the world's carrier's ATM > >networks. But right now, for them to take advantage, they have to upgrade > >their ATM switches to IP, rather than just installing a MPLS multi-service > >switch as a dropin replacement. > > > >> > >> Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is certainly not IP only, as packet > >> forwarding is only one of its modes. It can set up forwarding based > >> on wavelengths, time slots, or ports. > > > >Neither is draft-martini, draft kompella, draft-fischer, or any of the other > >drafts. > > > >But the point is not the forwarding plane, it's the control plane, which > >still relies on IP. > > What do you propose as a scalable alternative that doesn't simply > meet telephony needs? I propose that MPLS exist as a control-plane technology that sits 'above' LDP/RSVP (in the case of IP) and PNNI (in the case of ATM) and other dynamic-provisioning technologies (in the case of, say, ADM's). MPLS would then be a generalized way to assign labels, and the actual mechanism of telling individual nodes of such label assignment would be the task of LDP/RSVP or PNNI or whatever. Naturally a lot of details would have to be worked out, but I believe this is not unreasonable as a gameplan. > > > > >> > >> The first MPLS predecessor, Ipsilon's (now part of Nokia) IP > >> switching was planned as a faster means of lookup than conventional > >> routing. With advances in L3 hardware and software, that simply > >> didn't turn out to be useful or even scalable. > >> > >> Those initial implementations, by Ipsilon, were ATM dependent both > >> for path setup and transport. > > > >And I think this functionality was sadly lost. Not the transport > >functionality, but the path-setup functionality. I think more work needs to > >be done on the ATM side of things to make MPLS more palatable to carriers > >who run lots of ATM and would like to migrate to MPLS but want a smooth > >transition path. > > Or some carriers may be displaced by VoX. I've seen quite a number of > marketing research documents that suggest the typical telco wants 90% > L2, 10% L3, because that's what they think their provisioning people > can understand. What I want to know is how many carriers
Re: access list [7:54592]
Thanks for the feed back... - Original Message - From: "Simon Dartford" To: Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 10:09 PM Subject: RE: access list [7:54592] > There is a book called Cisco Access Lists Field Guide, by Gilbert Held. > Paperback, 288 pages > > I have a copy and it is pretty good. Some of it is a copy'n'paste of CCO (or > vice versa), eg reflexive ACLs. > > cheers > > Simon Dartford > Design Engineer > Advanced Solutions > Telecom New Zealand > > Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: +64 4 382-5453 > Fax: +64 4 385-1223 > Mobile: 025 243 7989 > > Important: This electronic message and attachments (if any) are confidential > and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient do not > copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please let us know by return > email immediately and then destroy this message. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Karl West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:06 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: access list [7:54592] > > > Does anyone know of a good book (not too big) that cover access list in > detail? > > Thanks > Karl > - > "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. > If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read > it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not > copy or use any part of this communication or disclose > anything about it. Thank you." > > -- --- > - > > [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name > of Simon Dartford (E-mail).vcf] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54604&t=54592 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CMTS Simulator [7:54603]
Any know how to simulate a CMTS? I have a few uBR900's in a lab environment, and would love to use the cable interface. Since I don't know much about the cable infrastructure, I don't know if I can use the interfaces without a CMTS (i.e. back to back cable interfaces) Any suggestions? Thanks! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54603&t=54603 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: e-mail server for Mac OS [7:54586]
I personally think upgrading to MAC OS X would most definitely offer more choices. I use a combination of Postfix and Qpopper (on FreeBSD) both of which I know will run on MAC OS X. Communicate PRO is supposed to be an EXCELLENT commercial email server with SMTP/POP/IMAP capabilities all built in. I have not used it myself, but it comes highly recommended on my lists. There is an online demo on Stalker's website. http://www.stalker.com/CommuniGatePro/ If you want to go all open source I would use Postfix - as of yet it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of Sendmail and Qmail, but it is ROCK SOLID, and has had no significant security problems. Postfix supports virtual domains, virtual users (non system account users) in LDAP and MySQL. It has various built in anti UCE controls as well. It is also consistently shown to be one of the fastest MTA's out there. Here is a good article on MAC OS X and Postfix.. http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/Workbench/eart.index.html Hope this helps, Stephen Hoover Dallas, Texas - Original Message - From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" To: Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:52 PM Subject: e-mail server for Mac OS [7:54586] > OK, no laughing or flaming, but I have a customer that is all Mac-based. > They are planning to upgrade their e-mail server. Does anyone have any > suggestions for a good e-mail server that will meet these requirements: > > Must support SMTP and POP, obviously. No need for IMAP. > Should support about 200 users who check e-mail quite often. > E-mail is mission critical (seriously) and the server must be stable. > Must support virtual domains. The customer does e-mail for other customers. > Should have some anti-spam measures and methods for avoiding being > blacklisted as a relay server. > > Currently the customer uses Mac OS 9 and is looking at Eudora Internet Mail > Server (EIMS) and WebStar's e-mail plugin for their Web server. Anyone have > experience with those? > > The customer is open to the idea of upgrading to Mac OS X. Then there are > many more options because Mac OS X is UNIX. > > Would sendmail work?? It may be too complex for this particular customer?? > > Apple also has a product called Mac OS X Server, which has an e-mail server. > Anyone have experience with that? > > I'm open to all ideas. Think outside the box! ;-) > > Thank-you very much. > > ___ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > www.troubleshootingnetworks.com > www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54602&t=54586 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ccnp routing [7:54579]
I sat this yesterday! It is a bit differnet, and in my opinion, better. Better because there is actual router simulation involved. I had to configure OSPF on one! I was caught out on IS-IS as I only started to study that at 6am the morning on the exam. My diligence was rewarded with %20 on IS-IS content. I fared better overall and go an excellent overall score (considering my performance on IS-IS). It focussed mainly on IS-IS (approx 10 questions), OSPF and BGP. Very little on EIGRP. I have only really ever configured EIGRP and BGP and I still did ok. Never seen OSPF before or since! I studied for one week beforehand. I used the old Ciscopress 503 exam guide. This was ok and went into more depth than the exam did. I borrowed the course notes for the IS-IS content, but did not retain anything much in the hour between 6am and 7am! IMHO, you will be fine with having done the course and a bit of revision. Some have said in cramsession it was way hard - only hard if you have not prepared well! I relied on my practical experience and just browsed the book. In the final 10 minutes, I was sure I had failed, as all the IS-IS questions were at the end. I was running through my head when I should resit, only to be surprised (really surprised...) that I had passed! Hope this info is helpful Simon Dartford Design Engineer Advanced Solutions Telecom New Zealand Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +64 4 382-5453 Fax: +64 4 385-1223 Mobile: 025 243 7989 Important: This electronic message and attachments (if any) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please let us know by return email immediately and then destroy this message. -Original Message- From: Jesus Velazquez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2002 10:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ccnp routing [7:54579] i'm sitting in on the routing 901 bsci (new exam) next week...any good advice or look outs for the exam?? i took the global knowledge course 2 weeks ago and have the older version of the boson routing for exam 603. should this be suffice. i heard the cisco press routing book is not a very good book for this course. thanks - "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you." - - [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of Simon Dartford (E-mail).vcf] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54589&t=54579 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: access list [7:54592]
There is a book called Cisco Access Lists Field Guide, by Gilbert Held. Paperback, 288 pages I have a copy and it is pretty good. Some of it is a copy'n'paste of CCO (or vice versa), eg reflexive ACLs. cheers Simon Dartford Design Engineer Advanced Solutions Telecom New Zealand Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +64 4 382-5453 Fax: +64 4 385-1223 Mobile: 025 243 7989 Important: This electronic message and attachments (if any) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. Please let us know by return email immediately and then destroy this message. -Original Message- From: Karl West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:06 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: access list [7:54592] Does anyone know of a good book (not too big) that cover access list in detail? Thanks Karl - "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you." - - [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of Simon Dartford (E-mail).vcf] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54601&t=54592 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Backbone ? [7:54590]
Jimmy wrote: > > Hi, > Just want to clarify something. Let say i have middle-size > network which all > the switches (around 4) connected together to a router. The > backbone of the > network should be the toward the WAN side which is from the > router onsward > rite? Or is it the connection from the switch to the router? > > > > Switch-Switch 1--\ > Hub -Switch 2---\ > Switch-Switch 3---/ Router -- (Backbone) > Hub-Switch 4--/ > It's hard to say, but it looks like you have a collapsed backbone and it's the router. When multiple links converge into one device, such as a switch or router, then it's often called a collapsed backbone. Where does the WAN go? If it just accesses another network, such as the Internet, then it wouldn't normally be called a backbone. But if you have an enterprise network with a core of WAN links that connect campus LANs, you could call the WAN core the backbone of the enterprise network. Usually a backbone has more capacity than the other links in the network, however, and so usually a WAN link doesn't act as a backbone for LANs. A more usual use of the term would be a Gigabit Ethernet backbone that acts as the backbone for 10 and 100 Mbps Ethernet segments. It's not really a scientific term, though, and it gets used in many different ways. The idea is that when you draw your topolgoy, you will undoubtedly have some larger transmission link that aggregates traffic from smaller links. That larger link is a backbone. The drawing should look like the bone in your back that connects other bones. It's just an analogy. Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54600&t=54590 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCIE R&S Written Study Partner in Stockton,CA [7:54599]
Need a study partner in or around Stockton,CA to study for the CCIE R&S Written the the lab. If you around Stockton let me know so we can hook up and knock this test out. Cisco_King Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54599&t=54599 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: router boots in to rommon [7:54591]
Thank you I already swapped memory once, but I will try it again. ""Kim Graham"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Check your flash for crash info files. You can read through these and or > download them to add to your TAC case. You have a memory error and may need > to swap out a stick of memory. > > Searching "Cache Error Exception 4700" and "Cache Parity Exception 4500" > separately gives you many links that will help you to understand what is > happening. You do not need a CCO account to do this search. > > Kim Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54598&t=54591 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE R&S WRITTEN STUDY PARTNER IN FREMONT, CA [7:54491]
I live in Hayward by the way... ""Keith"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > What's your lab setup? I'm studying for the lab too. I have: (1)2610, > (1)2611, (1)2501, (1)2924, and (1)2912. > > Keith > > ""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > when you get to the lab, let me know..I am in San Jose and I have a lab > > setup... > > > > Cisco Rookie wrote: > > > > >Looking for a study partner for the CCIE R&S Written in Fremont, CA. > > -- > > > > Larry Letterman > > Network Engineer > > Cisco Systems Inc. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54596&t=54491 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: access list [7:54592]
Have one here with me now that I refer to every now and then. Got it in 2000, so may be a new version of this book now. Cisco Access Lists, Field Guide McGraw Hill Held/Hundley Isbn: 0-07-212335-4 John Sydney, Australia -Original Message- From: Karl West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: access list [7:54592] Does anyone know of a good book (not too big) that cover access list in detail? Thanks Karl ** visit http://www.solution6.com UK Customers - http://www.solution6.co.uk * This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is confidential to Solution 6. If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of Solution 6 are neither given nor endorsed by it. * Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54597&t=54592 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE R&S WRITTEN STUDY PARTNER IN FREMONT, CA [7:54491]
What's your lab setup? I'm studying for the lab too. I have: (1)2610, (1)2611, (1)2501, (1)2924, and (1)2912. Keith ""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > when you get to the lab, let me know..I am in San Jose and I have a lab > setup... > > Cisco Rookie wrote: > > >Looking for a study partner for the CCIE R&S Written in Fremont, CA. > -- > > Larry Letterman > Network Engineer > Cisco Systems Inc. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54595&t=54491 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: router boots in to rommon [7:54591]
Check your flash for crash info files. You can read through these and or download them to add to your TAC case. You have a memory error and may need to swap out a stick of memory. Searching "Cache Error Exception 4700" and "Cache Parity Exception 4500" separately gives you many links that will help you to understand what is happening. You do not need a CCO account to do this search. Kim Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54594&t=54591 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: access list [7:54592]
O'Reilly has a book called "Cisco IOS Access Lists". It is 250 pages and covers a few topics. Basics, Security Policies, Routing Policies, Debugging Lists, Route Maps etc.. I have read bits and pieces of this book and have found it to be not a bad book. Kim Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54593&t=54592 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
access list [7:54592]
Does anyone know of a good book (not too big) that cover access list in detail? Thanks Karl Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54592&t=54592 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
router boots in to rommon [7:54591]
Anybody have any ideas ? router tryes to boot, but goes in to rommon rommon 8 > meminfo Main memory size: 32 MB. Packet memory size: 16 MB Available main memory starts at 0xa000e000, size 0x1ff2000 Packet memory starts at 0xa800 NVRAM size: 0x2 rommon 9 > dir usage: dir rommon 10 > dir flash0: bad device name usage: dir rommon 11 > reset System Bootstrap, Version 5.3(10) [tamb 10], RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Copyright (c) 1994 by cisco Systems, Inc. C4500 processor with 32768 Kbytes of main memory program load complete, entry point: 0x80008000, size: 0x2b01c4 *** Cache Error Exception *** Cache Err Reg = 0xa0280108 data reference, primary cache, data field error , error not on SysAD Bus PC = 0x80008b00, Cause = 0x0, Status Reg = 0x30408405 monitor: command "boot" aborted due to exception*(Hh.MQ.5 ==QMQI.A1Y.IM%= =AeI% !Q! %EeeQ?e %M =MeMQ.5M1%9 95)C4500 processor with 32768 Kbytes of main memory rommon 1 > dev Devices in device table: id name flash: flash bootflash: boot flash eprom: eprom rommon 2 > dir flash: File size Checksum File name 4704832 bytes (0x47ca40) 0xdcecc4500-is-mz.120-7.bin rommon 3 > boot flash: c4500-is-mz.120-7.bin program load complete, entry point: 0x80008000, size: 0x47c924 Self decompressing the image : # # [OK] Restricted Rights Legend Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c) of the Commercial Computer Software - Restricted Rights clause at FAR sec. 52.227-19 and subparagraph (c) (1) (ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause at DFARS sec. 252.227-7013. cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, California 95134-1706 Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) 4500 Software (C4500-IS-M), Version 12.0(7), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Copyright (c) 1986-1999 by cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Thu 14-Oct-99 04:14 by phanguye Image text-base: 0x60008930, data-base: 0x608DA000 cisco 4700 (R4K) processor (revision E) with 32768K/16384K bytes of memory. Processor board ID 04320998 R4700 processor, Implementation 33, Revision 1.0 (512KB Level 2 Cache) G.703/E1 software, Version 1.0. Bridging software. X.25 software, Version 3.0.0. 128K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory. 8192K bytes of processor board System flash (Read/Write) 4096K bytes of processor board Boot flash (Read/Write) Press RETURN to get started! 00:00:03: %LINK-4-NOMAC: A random default MAC address of .0c83.0998 has been chosen. Ensure that this address is unique, or specify MAC addresses for commands (such as 'novell routing') that allow the use of this address as a default. 00:00:05: %SYS-5-RESTART: System restarted -- Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) 4500 Software (C4500-IS-M), Version 12.0(7), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Copyright (c) 1986-1999 by cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Thu 14-Oct-99 04:14 by phanguye Error: primary data cache, fields: data, SysAD virtual addr 0x60D80100, physical addr(21:3) 0x180100, vAddr(14:12) 0x virtual addr 0x60D80100, physical addr(21:3) 0x180100, vAddr(14:12) 0x === Flushing messages (00:39:41 UTC Thu Nov 21 1996) === Buffered messages: 00:00:03: %LINK-4-NOMAC: A random default MAC address of .0c83.0998 has been chosen. Ensure that this address is unique, or specify MAC addresses for commands (such as 'novell routing') that allow the use of this address as a default. 00:00:05: %SYS-5-RESTART: System restarted -- Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) 4500 Software (C4500-IS-M), Version 12.0(7), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Copyright (c) 1986-1999 by cisco Systems, Inc. Compiled Thu 14-Oct-99 04:14 by phanguye Queued messages: 00:01:06: %SYS-3-LOGGER_FLUSHING: System pausing to ensure console debugging out put. No fault history 0x. Need 11.1 (2) or higher ROM *** System received a Cache Parity Exception *** signal= 0x14, code= 0xa4180100, context= 0x60c0c5c0 PC = 0x602cbbc0, Cause = 0x8020, Status Reg = 0x34008002 rommon 4 > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54591&t=54591 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Backbone ? [7:54590]
Hi, Just want to clarify something. Let say i have middle-size network which all the switches (around 4) connected together to a router. The backbone of the network should be the toward the WAN side which is from the router onsward rite? Or is it the connection from the switch to the router? Switch-Switch 1--\ Hub -Switch 2---\ Switch-Switch 3---/ Router -- (Backbone) Hub-Switch 4--/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54590&t=54590 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: InterVLAN routing [7:54583]
At cisco we run eigrp on the 6509/msfc, setup vlan interfaces and route between them. The telephone subnets are just more vlan interfaces that pass dhcp data to the phones , just like the data networks. Larry Letterman Cisco Systems, IT-LAN JohnZ wrote: >Just thinking what are the best practices to route between vlans. We have 6 >vlans at work, the main reason for multiple vlans is to minimize the impact >of Broadcasts. We are running eigrp on the RSM/cat5500. Is this how most >people configure it out there ? Also we are planning to add a seperate vlan >for Voice and I wonder how would that be impacted with EIGRP running on the >RSM. Thanks for any insights or suggestions. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54588&t=54583 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: How are they talking? [7:54577]
It might depend on the address of the device in Amsterdam that you are using to ping. If the router, then do an extended ping and use the 172.29.30.1 as the source address. Ping to 192.168.100.15. It should work. If you are pinging from a workstation or the router using a valid 172.29.30.x address but are pinging to the servers that have static NAT translations in you California router then it will not succeed as configured. > -Original Message- > From: CTM CTM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 4:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: How are they talking? [7:54577] > > > I think if the following situation is explained, it would go > a long way to > my sorting out other issues. > Given the config files pasted at the bottom of this message: > > NetworkA = 172.29.10.0 > NetworkB = 192.168.100.0 > NetworkC = 172.29.30.0 > > RouterA hosts 172.29.10.0 and 192.168.100.0 > RouterB hosts 172.29.30.0 > > 192.168.100.0 can ping 172.29.30.0 > 172.29.10.0 cannot ping 172.29.30.0 > 172.29.30.0 cannot ping NetworkA or NetworkB > > What configuration is allowing NetworkB to ping NetworkC? And why no > communication back? > > > NetworkA: > > sh config > Using 3589 out of 29688 bytes > ! > version 12.1 > no parser cache > no service single-slot-reload-enable > no service pad > service timestamps debug uptime > service timestamps log uptime > service password-encryption > ! > hostname SC-SAN-RTR-01 > ! > logging buffered 4096 informational > logging rate-limit console 10 except errors > enable password > ! > ip subnet-zero > ! > ! > no ip finger > no ip domain-lookup > ip name-server 207.67.236.5 > ip name-server 207.67.247.4 > --More-- ! > no ip bootp server > ip audit notify log > ip audit po max-events 100 > ! > ! > crypto isakmp policy 1 > hash md5 > authentication pre-share > crypto isakmp key address xxx > ! > ! > crypto ipsec transform-set cm-transformset-1 esp-des esp-md5-hmac > ! > crypto map cm-cryptomap local-address Serial0/0.1 > crypto map cm-cryptomap 1 ipsec-isakmp > set peer xxx > set transform-set cm-transformset-1 > match address 100 > ! > call rsvp-sync > ! > ! > --More-- ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > ! > interface FastEthernet0/0 > description connected to San Diego Outside > ip address 172.29.10.1 255.255.255.0 > no ip redirects > no ip unreachables > ip nat inside > ip policy route-map nonat > duplex auto > speed auto > ! > interface Serial0/0 > no ip address > no ip redirects > no ip unreachables > encapsulation frame-relay > no ip route-cache > no ip mroute-cache > --More--service-module t1 > remote-alarm-enable > frame-relay lmi-type ansi > ! > interface Serial0/0.1 point-to-point > description connected to Internet > ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.0 > no ip redirects > no ip unreachables > ip nat outside > no ip route-cache > no ip mroute-cache > no arp frame-relay > frame-relay interface-dlci 16 > crypto map cm-cryptomap > ! > interface FastEthernet0/1 > description connected to EthernetLAN_2 > ip address 192.168.100.15 255.255.255.0 > no ip redirects > no ip unreachables > ip nat inside > ip policy route-map nonat > duplex auto > --More--speed auto > ! > interface Serial0/1 > no ip address > no ip redirects > no ip unreachables > encapsulation frame-relay IETF > no ip route-cache > no ip mroute-cache > no fair-queue > frame-relay traffic-shaping > frame-relay lmi-type ansi > ! > interface Serial0/1.474 point-to-point > description Frame-Relay Connection to II-NAU-RTR-01 DLC 474 > ip unnumbered FastEthernet0/1 > no ip redirects > no ip unreachables > no ip route-cache > no ip mroute-cache > no arp frame-relay > frame-relay interface-dlci 474 > ! > --More-- ip nat pool SCISANRTR001-natpool-1 > xx netmask 255.255.255.224 > ip nat inside source list 101 pool SCISANRTR001-natpool-1 overload > ip nat inside source static 172.29.20.20 > ip nat inside source static 192.168.100.135 > ip nat inside source static 192.168.100.20 > ip nat inside source static 172.29.10.20 x > ip classless > ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0/0.1 > ip route 172.29.20.0 255.255.255.0 Serial0/1.474 > ip route 172.29.40.0 255.255.255.0 Serial0/1.474 > no ip http server > ip http port 7850 > ! > logging history size 250 > logging history errors > logging facility syslog > access-list 100 permit ip x 0.0.0.31 172.29.30.0 0.0.0.255 > access-list 100 permit ip 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.255 172.29.30.0 > 0.0.0.255 > access-list 101 deny ip 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.255 172.29.30.0 > 0.0.0.255 > access-list 101 permit ip 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.255 any > access-list 101 permit ip 172.29.10.0 0.0.0.255 any > no cdp run > --More-- route-map nonat permit 10 > ! > snmp-server engineID local 000902049AEB2DE0
RE: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
What was the question? At 08:25 PM 9/30/2002 +, Kohli, Jaspreet wrote: >Thank You everyone for the valuable input . This has helped me put the issue >in the correct prospective !!! > > >Cheers > > >Jaspreet > _ > >Consultant > >Andrew NZ Inc >Box 50 691, Porirua >Wellington 6230, New Zealand >Phone +64 4 238 0723 >Fax +64 4 238 0701 >e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain >information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named >recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or >organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily >reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any >attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy >your copy of this message. Thank you. > >This message is for the designated recipient only and may >contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. >If you have received it in error, please notify the sender >immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of >this email is prohibited. > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54587&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e-mail server for Mac OS [7:54586]
OK, no laughing or flaming, but I have a customer that is all Mac-based. They are planning to upgrade their e-mail server. Does anyone have any suggestions for a good e-mail server that will meet these requirements: Must support SMTP and POP, obviously. No need for IMAP. Should support about 200 users who check e-mail quite often. E-mail is mission critical (seriously) and the server must be stable. Must support virtual domains. The customer does e-mail for other customers. Should have some anti-spam measures and methods for avoiding being blacklisted as a relay server. Currently the customer uses Mac OS 9 and is looking at Eudora Internet Mail Server (EIMS) and WebStar's e-mail plugin for their Web server. Anyone have experience with those? The customer is open to the idea of upgrading to Mac OS X. Then there are many more options because Mac OS X is UNIX. Would sendmail work?? It may be too complex for this particular customer?? Apple also has a product called Mac OS X Server, which has an e-mail server. Anyone have experience with that? I'm open to all ideas. Think outside the box! ;-) Thank-you very much. ___ Priscilla Oppenheimer www.troubleshootingnetworks.com www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54586&t=54586 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
InterVLAN routing [7:54583]
Just thinking what are the best practices to route between vlans. We have 6 vlans at work, the main reason for multiple vlans is to minimize the impact of Broadcasts. We are running eigrp on the RSM/cat5500. Is this how most people configure it out there ? Also we are planning to add a seperate vlan for Voice and I wonder how would that be impacted with EIGRP running on the RSM. Thanks for any insights or suggestions. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54583&t=54583 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
> > >I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require IP at >all? >> >At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called Internet >Protocol >> >Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has >effectively >> >become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized control-plane >mechanism >> >for which is what it was originally intended. >> > >> >> Let me offer a different way to look at it. MPLS really isn't >> monolithic. As a sub-IP protocol in the IETF, basic MPLS still has >> separable forwarding and control plane aspects. The control plane >> involves path setup protocols such as RSVP-TE and LDP. These, in >> turn, have to get overall topology information from _somewhere_. >> Besides IP routing protocols and PNNI, what is there for that purpose >> that wouldn't need to be invented? > >You just hit it on the head. First of all, why is it considered a sub-IP >protocol? In fact, why is the IETF running the show in the first place? Because it can, and does. I've been involved in Formal International Standards Bodies, where the Camel was developed as a functional specification for a Mouse. The market and the world are far faster than the carriers would like it to be. When I worked for a primarily carrier-oriented vendor, there were deep emotions that they could make IP go away with: (1) Ubiquitous fiber (2) Apparently manually provisioned MPLS, since they equated the topology to something of equal complexity and hierarchy to what you can do in SS#7. >MPLS has potentially far more applicability than just in the Internet (for >those who didn't catch it, the 'I' in IETF stands for Internet). For >example, MPLS has tremendous potential for all the world's carrier's ATM >networks. But right now, for them to take advantage, they have to upgrade >their ATM switches to IP, rather than just installing a MPLS multi-service >switch as a dropin replacement. > >> >> Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is certainly not IP only, as packet >> forwarding is only one of its modes. It can set up forwarding based >> on wavelengths, time slots, or ports. > >Neither is draft-martini, draft kompella, draft-fischer, or any of the other >drafts. > >But the point is not the forwarding plane, it's the control plane, which >still relies on IP. What do you propose as a scalable alternative that doesn't simply meet telephony needs? > >> >> The first MPLS predecessor, Ipsilon's (now part of Nokia) IP >> switching was planned as a faster means of lookup than conventional >> routing. With advances in L3 hardware and software, that simply >> didn't turn out to be useful or even scalable. >> >> Those initial implementations, by Ipsilon, were ATM dependent both >> for path setup and transport. > >And I think this functionality was sadly lost. Not the transport >functionality, but the path-setup functionality. I think more work needs to >be done on the ATM side of things to make MPLS more palatable to carriers >who run lots of ATM and would like to migrate to MPLS but want a smooth >transition path. Or some carriers may be displaced by VoX. I've seen quite a number of marketing research documents that suggest the typical telco wants 90% L2, 10% L3, because that's what they think their provisioning people can understand. The models of manual provisioning, settlements, central coordinating authorities, etc., still persists in the carrier view of the world. Also, there are a fair number of vendors that want to retrofit full MPLS into the spaghetti code of their ATM switches. I've tried to do that. It was a nightmare. PNNI isn't enough. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54582&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
>Jelly doughnut? I don't get it - I thought he was talking about the Shiite >population in Iran which dominated news a couple decades ago with the rise >of the Ayatollah Khomeini... > >A Berliner, er, jelly doughnut sounds a bit tasty, though... JFK sure >thought so - especially in Germany... JFK is what I was thinking of. I usually think of the former as Shi'a, just as I don't think of Sunnites. Not trying to start a literally religious war! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54584&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
Jelly doughnut? I don't get it - I thought he was talking about the Shiite population in Iran which dominated news a couple decades ago with the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini... A Berliner, er, jelly doughnut sounds a bit tasty, though... JFK sure thought so - especially in Germany... Bill Creighton CCNP Senior System Engineer Motorola iDEN CNRC Packet Data MPS -Original Message- From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507] >""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> At 7:11 PM + 9/30/02, nrf wrote: >> >""Robert Edmonds"" wrote in message >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> >> In a large organization, I would recommend OSPF anyway. It's >generally >> >> considered to be more scalable the EIGRP. >> > >> >Well, shyeeet, if you REALLY want scalability in an IGP, then there's >only >> >one answer - ISIS. >> > >> >> When did you start trying to talk Texan? Shee-yit is generally preferred. >> "-) > > >CL: in today's sensative geopolitical environment, one must take care not to >mispronounce either, and end up talking about a partcular religious flavor >made famous by cetain events in a certain part of the world a couple of >decades ago. Just remember to keep that last vowel short, rather than long >;-> > Are you suggesting someone in Texas is a jelly doughnut? Hmmm...that was about four decades ago, wasn't it? Time flies. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54581&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540]
>Howard, > >Is there an audio tape that goes with the slides. If so, I'd being >willing to >pay so I could show this presentation to my CCNP students, including >the "shameless plug." BTW, liked your concise explanation of CIDR >vs VLSM. > >Prof. Tom Lisa, CCAI >Community College of Southern Nevada >Cisco ATC/Regional Networking Academy > Tom, I don't think anyone recorded it -- at some point, NANOG started doing RealVideo. Here's a couple that touch on this subject, and do have sound. Please ignore anything I say about RFC2270--I had a complete brain burp on it. http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0102/exterior.html Exterior Routing 201 http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0102/cust.html Customer Satisfaction 201 this has some stuff on address management, including dynamic generation of static routes. I thought this OSPF tutorial might, but it's PP and HTML only: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9910/ospf.html This is an updated version of one I did in 1998. Another set of presentations, on which I teamed with Richard Jimmerson of ARIN, also is slides only. Richard talked about the procedures of obtaining address space and I talked about managing it. It used to be on the ARIN.net site, but I can't find it. I'll put it up on the Gett site shortly. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54580&t=54540 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ccnp routing [7:54579]
i'm sitting in on the routing 901 bsci (new exam) next week...any good advice or look outs for the exam?? i took the global knowledge course 2 weeks ago and have the older version of the boson routing for exam 603. should this be suffice. i heard the cisco press routing book is not a very good book for this course. thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54579&t=54579 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
>""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> At 7:11 PM + 9/30/02, nrf wrote: >> >""Robert Edmonds"" wrote in message >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> >> In a large organization, I would recommend OSPF anyway. It's >generally >> >> considered to be more scalable the EIGRP. >> > >> >Well, shyeeet, if you REALLY want scalability in an IGP, then there's >only >> >one answer - ISIS. >> > >> >> When did you start trying to talk Texan? Shee-yit is generally preferred. >> "-) > > >CL: in today's sensative geopolitical environment, one must take care not to >mispronounce either, and end up talking about a partcular religious flavor >made famous by cetain events in a certain part of the world a couple of >decades ago. Just remember to keep that last vowel short, rather than long >;-> > Are you suggesting someone in Texas is a jelly doughnut? Hmmm...that was about four decades ago, wasn't it? Time flies. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54578&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How are they talking? [7:54577]
I think if the following situation is explained, it would go a long way to my sorting out other issues. Given the config files pasted at the bottom of this message: NetworkA = 172.29.10.0 NetworkB = 192.168.100.0 NetworkC = 172.29.30.0 RouterA hosts 172.29.10.0 and 192.168.100.0 RouterB hosts 172.29.30.0 192.168.100.0 can ping 172.29.30.0 172.29.10.0 cannot ping 172.29.30.0 172.29.30.0 cannot ping NetworkA or NetworkB What configuration is allowing NetworkB to ping NetworkC? And why no communication back? NetworkA: sh config Using 3589 out of 29688 bytes ! version 12.1 no parser cache no service single-slot-reload-enable no service pad service timestamps debug uptime service timestamps log uptime service password-encryption ! hostname SC-SAN-RTR-01 ! logging buffered 4096 informational logging rate-limit console 10 except errors enable password ! ip subnet-zero ! ! no ip finger no ip domain-lookup ip name-server 207.67.236.5 ip name-server 207.67.247.4 --More-- ! no ip bootp server ip audit notify log ip audit po max-events 100 ! ! crypto isakmp policy 1 hash md5 authentication pre-share crypto isakmp key address xxx ! ! crypto ipsec transform-set cm-transformset-1 esp-des esp-md5-hmac ! crypto map cm-cryptomap local-address Serial0/0.1 crypto map cm-cryptomap 1 ipsec-isakmp set peer xxx set transform-set cm-transformset-1 match address 100 ! call rsvp-sync ! ! --More-- ! ! ! ! ! ! interface FastEthernet0/0 description connected to San Diego Outside ip address 172.29.10.1 255.255.255.0 no ip redirects no ip unreachables ip nat inside ip policy route-map nonat duplex auto speed auto ! interface Serial0/0 no ip address no ip redirects no ip unreachables encapsulation frame-relay no ip route-cache no ip mroute-cache --More--service-module t1 remote-alarm-enable frame-relay lmi-type ansi ! interface Serial0/0.1 point-to-point description connected to Internet ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.0 no ip redirects no ip unreachables ip nat outside no ip route-cache no ip mroute-cache no arp frame-relay frame-relay interface-dlci 16 crypto map cm-cryptomap ! interface FastEthernet0/1 description connected to EthernetLAN_2 ip address 192.168.100.15 255.255.255.0 no ip redirects no ip unreachables ip nat inside ip policy route-map nonat duplex auto --More--speed auto ! interface Serial0/1 no ip address no ip redirects no ip unreachables encapsulation frame-relay IETF no ip route-cache no ip mroute-cache no fair-queue frame-relay traffic-shaping frame-relay lmi-type ansi ! interface Serial0/1.474 point-to-point description Frame-Relay Connection to II-NAU-RTR-01 DLC 474 ip unnumbered FastEthernet0/1 no ip redirects no ip unreachables no ip route-cache no ip mroute-cache no arp frame-relay frame-relay interface-dlci 474 ! --More-- ip nat pool SCISANRTR001-natpool-1 xx netmask 255.255.255.224 ip nat inside source list 101 pool SCISANRTR001-natpool-1 overload ip nat inside source static 172.29.20.20 ip nat inside source static 192.168.100.135 ip nat inside source static 192.168.100.20 ip nat inside source static 172.29.10.20 x ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0/0.1 ip route 172.29.20.0 255.255.255.0 Serial0/1.474 ip route 172.29.40.0 255.255.255.0 Serial0/1.474 no ip http server ip http port 7850 ! logging history size 250 logging history errors logging facility syslog access-list 100 permit ip x 0.0.0.31 172.29.30.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 100 permit ip 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.255 172.29.30.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 101 deny ip 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.255 172.29.30.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 101 permit ip 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.255 any access-list 101 permit ip 172.29.10.0 0.0.0.255 any no cdp run --More-- route-map nonat permit 10 ! snmp-server engineID local 000902049AEB2DE0 ! dial-peer cor custom ! ! ! ! ! line con 0 exec-timeout 0 0 password x login transport input none line aux 0 line vty 0 4 password 7 0100070A0959545A294D400A16061C login ! scheduler allocate 4000 1000 end x SC-SAN-RTR-01>sh int FastEthernet0/0 is up, line protocol is up Hardware is AmdFE, address is 0004.9aeb.2de0 (bia 0004.9aeb.2de0) Description: connected to Outside Internet address is 172.29.10.1/24 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set Keepalive set (10 sec) Half-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters 4d22h Queueing strategy: fifo Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 1/75, 782 drops 5 minute input rate 5000 bits/sec, 8 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 5000 bits/sec, 6
Re: OT: Serves Me Right - DHCP problem [7:54402]
""Kevin Wigle"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > W2K/XP does that automatically. If you have the icon turned on in the > system tray for the nic, you will see when the cable is unplugged and when > it is plugged in again. (you don't need it turned on to work) > > this has been stated somewhere before in this thread. That was me trying to keep everyone's perspective of the pre-w2k clients on the described network. But I didn't realize there were problems with w2k clients as well at that point. > But Chuck says he has W2K/XP and it isn't working. (for everybody). Why is > it working for some and not others? > In our lab we sometimes punch a PC from one segment to another. When it > doesn't work we just unplug and replug and it usually works the 2nd time. > Oh I didn't catch that part of the problem description. I thought the users were all 98/NT4. If that were so, it would be perfectly expected what's happening. > Sounds like it's time to get the sniffer working. Yes it really does sound like time to look at L2 and the ACTUAL details of this situation. Could be a variety of things but the packet capture should show the cards. After solving those though there is still the pre-w2k clients which aren't disappearing tomorrow. IMHO the traditional way to handle this before many clients did the automatic renewal upon link up was to: a)make the "mobile" access ports on one VLAN per building(or conveniently close geographic footprint) b)with caution tune lease times downward for those access VLANs to roughly the time it would take to travel from one building/campus to another Some folks also: -got fancy with meeting the concept behind A and did things based upon mac prefixes. -just educated folks to release and acquire a new address or reboot(doesn't help Chuck's situation much) Darrell Service Advisor http://www.netswitch.net Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54576&t=54402 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Kent Yu"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""nrf"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > [snip] > > > > And I think this functionality was sadly lost. Not the transport > > functionality, but the path-setup functionality. I think more work needs > to > > be done on the ATM side of things to make MPLS more palatable to carriers > > who run lots of ATM and would like to migrate to MPLS but want a smooth > > transition path. > > > > Is a smooth transition possible at all? > If, by transition, you mean running mpls on the atm gears, my impression was > carriers seem not like messing their ATM network with mpls, there always be > exceptions. I can see the financial gains of doing this is huge, but a > smooth transition is just beyond my limited imagination. Actually, I am thinking more of a situation where instead of buying more ATM switches, carriers will instead buy multiservice switches that are fully MPLS capable, but run a kind of MPLS that is fully compatible with ATM signalling (which unfortunately does not exist right now). Carriers are always refreshing their existing ATM networks (because stuff gets old and fully depreciated), so if stuff needs to get replaced anyway, wouldn't it be nice to replace it with this kind of switch I'm talking about? Eventually, over a period of years, the entire ATM infrastructure would be fully replaced with MPLS. But the only way to do this smoothly is if those MPLS switches were a full and complete drop-in replacement for ATM. > > Let's hope the router vendors can eventually build routers as stable as ATM > switches, IMHO, this could come before any smooth transition could be > invented. It's not just a matter of making routers more stable, although that's part of it. It's also a matter of making LSP's as reliable as ATM VC's. > > My .02 > > Kent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > > >> > > > >> I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. > > > >> > > > >> Chuck > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > >> > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large > > corporation > > > >> > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will > > be > > > > > > greatly appreciated . Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54575&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Returned mail--"look,my beautiful girl friend" [7:54574]
The following mail can't be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: look,my beautiful girl friend The file is the original mail Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54574&t=54574 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 7:11 PM + 9/30/02, nrf wrote: > >""Robert Edmonds"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> In a large organization, I would recommend OSPF anyway. It's generally > >> considered to be more scalable the EIGRP. > > > >Well, shyeeet, if you REALLY want scalability in an IGP, then there's only > >one answer - ISIS. > > > > When did you start trying to talk Texan? Shee-yit is generally preferred. > "-) CL: in today's sensative geopolitical environment, one must take care not to mispronounce either, and end up talking about a partcular religious flavor made famous by cetain events in a certain part of the world a couple of decades ago. Just remember to keep that last vowel short, rather than long ;-> > > ISIS is certainly more scalable in a stable, flat topology. OSPF has > different scalability capabilities, admittedly more characteristic of > enterprises, but also potentially of POPs. > > Today's OSPF has more capabilities for hot potato routing, selective > flooding, etc. ISIS is being extended (e.g., L1L2 routers) to do some > of these things, although certain aspects of both may go into MPLS. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54573&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lookee Lookie - new certifications!!!! [7:54435]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > >Robert Edmonds wrote: > >> > >> Here's another benefit I see from certifications like this: > >> there are > >> things that all of us know how to do, but if asked to walk > >> someone through > >> it over the phone, couldn't do it. For example, for me it > >> would be DNS > >> configuration. I can do it, but I can't tell YOU how to do > >> it. I know it > >> just well enough to kind of stumble through it and get it > >> working. And I > >> can get it working CORRECTLY. It's just that I am weak in > that > >> area. With > >> a performance based test in a lab situation, I could pass by > >> getting it to > >> work, but I may not be able to answer the question > correctly on > >> paper. And, > >> in my opinion, it's more important to be able to "walk the > >> walk" than "talk > >> the talk". What do you think? > > > >Talking the talk is very important too. Think proactively. > Hopefully, before > >long, you'll be moving up in the world. If you can train your > replacement to > >do what you did, then you can move up with fewer impediments. > If you can't > >train a replacement, then you may not be able to move up, or > you may move up > >and continually get calls from your replacement asking for > your help. > > Increasingly, I like my conceit of talking the walk. I should have said talking the walk. That's what I had in mind. > Talking > the talk > may be more characteristic of sales. Remember, some of the > important > distinctions between a seller of used cars and an account > executive > for networking are that the seller of used cars both knows when > he is > lying and how to drive. > > Walking the talk also makes more sense -- it is the ability to > listen > and learn, and can be generalized to researching who has talked > about > what. Or it could be trying to implement what that talkative sales person sold you?? ;-) Priscilla > > > > > > >I have worked with engineers who have never given any thought > to learning, > >training, etc. You know the type who can only work with > concrete things and > >considers any social science like education or psychology to > be hogwash. ;-) > > Were it not for social sciences like anthropology, you and I > couldn't > be tribal elders or shamans. > > >These types get stuck doing all sorts of mundane things that > are beneath > >them because they can't explain to someone else how to do it. > This probably > >doesn't apply to you, but it's just something to think about. > > > >It's funny that you use DNS as an example. I'm working with an > engineer > >right now who has said he will show me his DNS tasks but he > has failed to do > >this. I wonder if it's because he only does it once in a while > and is afraid > >that he won't be able to explain it to me. I'll try to go easy > on him, now > >that you have helped me see his side of the story. :-) > > > >Priscilla > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54572&t=54435 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
At 7:11 PM + 9/30/02, nrf wrote: >""Robert Edmonds"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> In a large organization, I would recommend OSPF anyway. It's generally >> considered to be more scalable the EIGRP. > >Well, shyeeet, if you REALLY want scalability in an IGP, then there's only >one answer - ISIS. > When did you start trying to talk Texan? Shee-yit is generally preferred. "-) ISIS is certainly more scalable in a stable, flat topology. OSPF has different scalability capabilities, admittedly more characteristic of enterprises, but also potentially of POPs. Today's OSPF has more capabilities for hot potato routing, selective flooding, etc. ISIS is being extended (e.g., L1L2 routers) to do some of these things, although certain aspects of both may go into MPLS. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54571&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... [snip] > > And I think this functionality was sadly lost. Not the transport > functionality, but the path-setup functionality. I think more work needs to > be done on the ATM side of things to make MPLS more palatable to carriers > who run lots of ATM and would like to migrate to MPLS but want a smooth > transition path. > Is a smooth transition possible at all? If, by transition, you mean running mpls on the atm gears, my impression was carriers seem not like messing their ATM network with mpls, there always be exceptions. I can see the financial gains of doing this is huge, but a smooth transition is just beyond my limited imagination. Let's hope the router vendors can eventually build routers as stable as ATM switches, IMHO, this could come before any smooth transition could be invented. My .02 Kent > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > >> > > >> I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. > > >> > > >> Chuck > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > >> > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large > corporation > > >> > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will > be > > > > > greatly appreciated . Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54569&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lookee Lookie - new certifications!!!! [7:54435]
>Robert Edmonds wrote: >> >> Here's another benefit I see from certifications like this: >> there are >> things that all of us know how to do, but if asked to walk >> someone through >> it over the phone, couldn't do it. For example, for me it >> would be DNS >> configuration. I can do it, but I can't tell YOU how to do >> it. I know it >> just well enough to kind of stumble through it and get it >> working. And I >> can get it working CORRECTLY. It's just that I am weak in that >> area. With >> a performance based test in a lab situation, I could pass by >> getting it to >> work, but I may not be able to answer the question correctly on >> paper. And, >> in my opinion, it's more important to be able to "walk the >> walk" than "talk >> the talk". What do you think? > >Talking the talk is very important too. Think proactively. Hopefully, before >long, you'll be moving up in the world. If you can train your replacement to >do what you did, then you can move up with fewer impediments. If you can't >train a replacement, then you may not be able to move up, or you may move up >and continually get calls from your replacement asking for your help. Increasingly, I like my conceit of talking the walk. Talking the talk may be more characteristic of sales. Remember, some of the important distinctions between a seller of used cars and an account executive for networking are that the seller of used cars both knows when he is lying and how to drive. Walking the talk also makes more sense -- it is the ability to listen and learn, and can be generalized to researching who has talked about what. > > >I have worked with engineers who have never given any thought to learning, >training, etc. You know the type who can only work with concrete things and >considers any social science like education or psychology to be hogwash. ;-) Were it not for social sciences like anthropology, you and I couldn't be tribal elders or shamans. >These types get stuck doing all sorts of mundane things that are beneath >them because they can't explain to someone else how to do it. This probably >doesn't apply to you, but it's just something to think about. > >It's funny that you use DNS as an example. I'm working with an engineer >right now who has said he will show me his DNS tasks but he has failed to do >this. I wonder if it's because he only does it once in a while and is afraid >that he won't be able to explain it to me. I'll try to go easy on him, now >that you have helped me see his side of the story. :-) > >Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54570&t=54435 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
>""Haakon Claassen (hclaasse)"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> Perhaps the Multi protocol >> >> Is in regards to the fact that it can support multiple routing contexts >> (one per vrf) > >That's a pretty weak definition of 'multiprotocol'. > >More to the point, even if you're talking about RFC2547 vpn's (which is only >a subset of MPLS functionality), you still require IP in the core. Why is >that required? Why can't I, for example, build RFC2547 vpn's on an ATM >core, where my ATM switches do not speak IP, but do speak a (theoretical) >version of MPLS that is completely compatible with ATM dynamic signalling? That's almost exactly what Ipsilon did with IP switching. If for no other reason, they ran into scaling problems, because they needed a VPI/VCI field for every flow. > >Now you might say that I could do this by just installing IP edge (PE) >routers over an ATM core, and the PE routers peer to each other with IP and >MPLS, and the ATM switches peer to each other with PNNI. But that sucks. >The whole promise of MPLS was to offer a unified control-plane. Current architectural thinking is that control planes are necessarily multilayered. Routing protocols and label distribution protocols, to say nothing about refinements in traffic engineering and failover, operate at different conceptual levels. For that matter, there are medium-specific control protocols below MPLS. > Not to >mention I still have the N-squared scaling problem with my edge routers. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54568&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
>I have an even more fundamental question. ;-) Why does MPLS need a routing >protocol at all? To determine the potential topologies over which end-to-end, and alternate (e.g., shared risk groups) paths can be established, and THEN to which labels can be assigned on a node-by-node basis. >Obviously, the forwarding of traffic doesn't use it. Forwarding is >based on the labels Forwarding != label distribution != LSR/LER designation != topology discovery FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
Thank You everyone for the valuable input . This has helped me put the issue in the correct prospective !!! Cheers Jaspreet _ Consultant Andrew NZ Inc Box 50 691, Porirua Wellington 6230, New Zealand Phone +64 4 238 0723 Fax +64 4 238 0701 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy your copy of this message. Thank you. This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54566&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540]
Howard, Is there an audio tape that goes with the slides. If so, I'd being willing to pay so I could show this presentation to my CCNP students, including the "shameless plug." BTW, liked your concise explanation of CIDR vs VLSM. Prof. Tom Lisa, CCAI Community College of Southern Nevada Cisco ATC/Regional Networking Academy "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: At 2:58 PM + 9/30/02, Don wrote: >Rather than run OSPF to customers, it is generally much better to have >them use a default route to the ISP and for the ISP to run static routes to >the customer. OSPF to the customer is a huge land mine for the ISP and >should be avoided in almost every case. > Don I agree completely with Don that an ISP _never_ should link its IGP to that of the customer. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that BGP needs a full routing table or will consume excessive resources. I remain confused why a default route wouldn't serve, unless there are multiple connections between the ISP and customer. By "send the block to the customer," do you mean the block is in the customer's space? You could certainly use a second static route, which can be generated automatically as part of your address assignment (see my NANOG presentation, http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9811/ppt/berk/index.htm). If that's not appropriate, have the customer announce his two blocks to you with BGP and receive default from your BGP. > > >""Chris Headings"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> Good morning all. I was wondering if someone could lend me a little help >> about engineering OSPF in the backbone for an ISP network. I just had a >> couple of questions and hopefully someone can give me some guidance.or >even >> some CCO links with some specific examples or better yet any material >> anywhere. >> >> Say, for example, that a customer has a small block of IP's and a >> distribution router knows where that block is, via a connected route, like >a >> /30 on a serial link. But later down the line the customer requests an >> additional block of 64 IP addresses, what is the best way to send this >block >> to the customer? Do I need to run OSPF on the customer equipment? If the >> customer router is not running OSPF, how do the routers know how to get to >> this destination? I assume via static routing??? >> >> Thanks as always. >> > > Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54565&t=54540 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540]
Well I work for an ISP, and I would have to say that it depends. For most customers (i.e. unmanaged) they just get a static route on the edge router which get redistributed in OSPF. If the customer happends to be in our "managed" program, we would then run OSPF to them. But if they happen to be in the MPLS-VPN catagory, well then we establish a BGP connection to them, and for larger customers we actually run a standard E-BGP session with them as they are mulithomed with another provider. So no one method will fit all of our customers. I agree those 1000 extra lines in the configs are a bit troublesome until you figure out how to parse the config efficently. (i.e. show run | beg show run |inc ) This really helps when searching for something. Erich -Original Message- From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540] Interesting. I don't work for an ISP bt have worked with many and I have only ran into one that ran an IGP with it's customers and I was suprised. My ancedotal evidence suggests that the vast majority either run BGP or statics to announce customer networks. I know there are plenty of ISP engineers out there and can confirm/rip my conjecture ;) Dave Mike Bernico wrote: > > I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement. The network I work for has > several distribution routers that contain around 1000 T1 speed > customers. If we were to static route each of their networks it would > add about 1000 to 1500 lines of router configuration to the router. > That would definately add to our maintenance and provisioning work and > make troubleshooting harder on our > techs. While I agree statics are probably the most stable way, I'm not > sure it's necessarily the best way to aggrigate high volumes of > customers. We currently use EIGRP at the edge with the stub command, > OSPF or IS-IS would work just as well. Regardless, we would never let > our IGP, that extends to the CE router, touch their IGP. About 98% of > our customers are not BGP customers though. > > YMMV > Mike > > --- > Mike Bernico [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Illinois Century Network http://www.illinois.net > (217) 557-6555 > > > -Original Message- > > From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 11:37 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540] > > > > > > At 2:58 PM + 9/30/02, Don wrote: > > >Rather than run OSPF to customers, it is generally much > > better to have > > >them use a default route to the ISP and for the ISP to run > > static routes to > > >the customer. OSPF to the customer is a huge land mine for > > the ISP and > > >should be avoided in almost every case. > > > Don > > > > I agree completely with Don that an ISP _never_ should link its IGP > > to that of the customer. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that > > BGP needs a full routing table or will consume excessive resources. > > > > I remain confused why a default route wouldn't serve, unless there > > are multiple connections between the ISP and customer. By "send the > > block to the customer," do you mean the block is in the customer's > > space? You could certainly use a second static route, which can be > > generated automatically as part of your address assignment (see my > > NANOG presentation, > > http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9811/ppt/berk/index.htm). > > > > If that's not appropriate, have the customer announce his two blocks > > to you with BGP and receive default from your BGP. > > > > > > > > > > >""Chris Headings"" wrote in message > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > >> Good morning all. I was wondering if someone could lend > > me a little help > > >> about engineering OSPF in the backbone for an ISP > > network. I just had a > > >> couple of questions and hopefully someone can give me > > some guidance.or > > >even > > >> some CCO links with some specific examples or better yet > > any material > > >> anywhere. > > >> > > >> Say, for example, that a customer has a small block of IP's and > > >> a distribution router knows where that block is, via a > > connected route, > > like > > >a > > >> /30 on a serial link. But later down the line the > > customer requests an > > >> additional block of 64 IP addresses, what is the best way > > to send this > > >block > > >> to the customer? Do I need to run OSPF on the customer > > equipment? If > > the > > >> customer router is not running OSPF, how do the routers > > know how to get > > to > > >> this destination? I assume via static routing??? > > >> > > >> Thanks as always. > > >> > > > > Chris -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&
Re: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540]
""Mike Bernico"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement. The network I work for has several > distribution routers that contain around 1000 T1 speed customers. If we > were to static route each of their networks it would add about 1000 to 1500 > lines of router configuration to the router. That would definately add to > our maintenance and provisioning work and make troubleshooting harder on our > techs. While I agree statics are probably the most stable way, I'm not > sure it's necessarily the best way to aggrigate high volumes of customers. > We currently use EIGRP at the edge with the stub command, OSPF or IS-IS > would work just as well. Regardless, we would never let our IGP, that > extends to the CE router, touch their IGP. About 98% of our customers are > not BGP customers though. Well, what you have just described isn't very different from what HB and Madman have described. It's just that in your case, the CE router is effectively part of your ISP. And since you said yourself that you would never link your ISP's IGP with a customer's IGP, that's pretty much exactly what HB has said, it's just that the 'demarc' is in a different place. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54563&t=54540 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have an even more fundamental question. ;-) Why does MPLS need a routing > protocol at all? Obviously, the forwarding of traffic doesn't use it. > Forwarding is based on the labels. Is it for the label distribution > component? Couldn't that be done with manual configuration?> I'm worried specifically about the label-distribution component (or more generally, the control plane). Naturally one could hard-code LSP's into everything. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54562&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
> >I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require IP at all? > >At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called Internet Protocol > >Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has effectively > >become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized control-plane mechanism > >for which is what it was originally intended. > > > > Let me offer a different way to look at it. MPLS really isn't > monolithic. As a sub-IP protocol in the IETF, basic MPLS still has > separable forwarding and control plane aspects. The control plane > involves path setup protocols such as RSVP-TE and LDP. These, in > turn, have to get overall topology information from _somewhere_. > Besides IP routing protocols and PNNI, what is there for that purpose > that wouldn't need to be invented? You just hit it on the head. First of all, why is it considered a sub-IP protocol? In fact, why is the IETF running the show in the first place? MPLS has potentially far more applicability than just in the Internet (for those who didn't catch it, the 'I' in IETF stands for Internet). For example, MPLS has tremendous potential for all the world's carrier's ATM networks. But right now, for them to take advantage, they have to upgrade their ATM switches to IP, rather than just installing a MPLS multi-service switch as a dropin replacement. > > Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is certainly not IP only, as packet > forwarding is only one of its modes. It can set up forwarding based > on wavelengths, time slots, or ports. Neither is draft-martini, draft kompella, draft-fischer, or any of the other drafts. But the point is not the forwarding plane, it's the control plane, which still relies on IP. > > The first MPLS predecessor, Ipsilon's (now part of Nokia) IP > switching was planned as a faster means of lookup than conventional > routing. With advances in L3 hardware and software, that simply > didn't turn out to be useful or even scalable. > > Those initial implementations, by Ipsilon, were ATM dependent both > for path setup and transport. And I think this functionality was sadly lost. Not the transport functionality, but the path-setup functionality. I think more work needs to be done on the ATM side of things to make MPLS more palatable to carriers who run lots of ATM and would like to migrate to MPLS but want a smooth transition path. > > > > > > >> > >> I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > >> > >> I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. > >> > >> Chuck > >> > >> > >> > >> ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation > >> > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be > > > > greatly appreciated . Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54561&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Haakon Claassen (hclaasse)"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Perhaps the Multi protocol > > Is in regards to the fact that it can support multiple routing contexts > (one per vrf) That's a pretty weak definition of 'multiprotocol'. More to the point, even if you're talking about RFC2547 vpn's (which is only a subset of MPLS functionality), you still require IP in the core. Why is that required? Why can't I, for example, build RFC2547 vpn's on an ATM core, where my ATM switches do not speak IP, but do speak a (theoretical) version of MPLS that is completely compatible with ATM dynamic signalling? Now you might say that I could do this by just installing IP edge (PE) routers over an ATM core, and the PE routers peer to each other with IP and MPLS, and the ATM switches peer to each other with PNNI. But that sucks. The whole promise of MPLS was to offer a unified control-plane. Not to mention I still have the N-squared scaling problem with my edge routers. > > resg Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54560&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540]
Interesting. I don't work for an ISP bt have worked with many and I have only ran into one that ran an IGP with it's customers and I was suprised. My ancedotal evidence suggests that the vast majority either run BGP or statics to announce customer networks. I know there are plenty of ISP engineers out there and can confirm/rip my conjecture ;) Dave Mike Bernico wrote: > > I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement. The network I work for has several > distribution routers that contain around 1000 T1 speed customers. If we > were to static route each of their networks it would add about 1000 to 1500 > lines of router configuration to the router. That would definately add to > our maintenance and provisioning work and make troubleshooting harder on our > techs. While I agree statics are probably the most stable way, I'm not > sure it's necessarily the best way to aggrigate high volumes of customers. > We currently use EIGRP at the edge with the stub command, OSPF or IS-IS > would work just as well. Regardless, we would never let our IGP, that > extends to the CE router, touch their IGP. About 98% of our customers are > not BGP customers though. > > YMMV > Mike > > --- > Mike Bernico [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Illinois Century Network http://www.illinois.net > (217) 557-6555 > > > -Original Message- > > From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 11:37 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540] > > > > > > At 2:58 PM + 9/30/02, Don wrote: > > >Rather than run OSPF to customers, it is generally much > > better to have > > >them use a default route to the ISP and for the ISP to run > > static routes to > > >the customer. OSPF to the customer is a huge land mine for > > the ISP and > > >should be avoided in almost every case. > > > Don > > > > I agree completely with Don that an ISP _never_ should link its IGP > > to that of the customer. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that > > BGP needs a full routing table or will consume excessive resources. > > > > I remain confused why a default route wouldn't serve, unless there > > are multiple connections between the ISP and customer. By "send the > > block to the customer," do you mean the block is in the customer's > > space? You could certainly use a second static route, which can be > > generated automatically as part of your address assignment (see my > > NANOG presentation, > > http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9811/ppt/berk/index.htm). > > > > If that's not appropriate, have the customer announce his two blocks > > to you with BGP and receive default from your BGP. > > > > > > > > > > >""Chris Headings"" wrote in message > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > >> Good morning all. I was wondering if someone could lend > > me a little help > > >> about engineering OSPF in the backbone for an ISP > > network. I just had a > > >> couple of questions and hopefully someone can give me > > some guidance.or > > >even > > >> some CCO links with some specific examples or better yet > > any material > > >> anywhere. > > >> > > >> Say, for example, that a customer has a small block of IP's and a > > >> distribution router knows where that block is, via a > > connected route, > > like > > >a > > >> /30 on a serial link. But later down the line the > > customer requests an > > >> additional block of 64 IP addresses, what is the best way > > to send this > > >block > > >> to the customer? Do I need to run OSPF on the customer > > equipment? If > > the > > >> customer router is not running OSPF, how do the routers > > know how to get > > to > > >> this destination? I assume via static routing??? > > >> > > >> Thanks as always. > > >> > > > > Chris -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston Churchill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54559&t=54540 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
""Robert Edmonds"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > In a large organization, I would recommend OSPF anyway. It's generally > considered to be more scalable the EIGRP. Well, shyeeet, if you REALLY want scalability in an IGP, then there's only one answer - ISIS. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54558&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lookee Lookie - new certifications!!!! [7:54435]
Robert Edmonds wrote: > > Here's another benefit I see from certifications like this: > there are > things that all of us know how to do, but if asked to walk > someone through > it over the phone, couldn't do it. For example, for me it > would be DNS > configuration. I can do it, but I can't tell YOU how to do > it. I know it > just well enough to kind of stumble through it and get it > working. And I > can get it working CORRECTLY. It's just that I am weak in that > area. With > a performance based test in a lab situation, I could pass by > getting it to > work, but I may not be able to answer the question correctly on > paper. And, > in my opinion, it's more important to be able to "walk the > walk" than "talk > the talk". What do you think? Talking the talk is very important too. Think proactively. Hopefully, before long, you'll be moving up in the world. If you can train your replacement to do what you did, then you can move up with fewer impediments. If you can't train a replacement, then you may not be able to move up, or you may move up and continually get calls from your replacement asking for your help. I have worked with engineers who have never given any thought to learning, training, etc. You know the type who can only work with concrete things and considers any social science like education or psychology to be hogwash. ;-) These types get stuck doing all sorts of mundane things that are beneath them because they can't explain to someone else how to do it. This probably doesn't apply to you, but it's just something to think about. It's funny that you use DNS as an example. I'm working with an engineer right now who has said he will show me his DNS tasks but he has failed to do this. I wonder if it's because he only does it once in a while and is afraid that he won't be able to explain it to me. I'll try to go easy on him, now that you have helped me see his side of the story. :-) Priscilla > ""Kevin Cullimore"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > inline > > - Original Message - > > From: "Robert Edmonds" > > To: > > Sent: 29 September 2002 12:00 am > > Subject: Re: Lookee Lookie - new certifications [7:54435] > > > > > > > I don't think it's accurate to say that Cisco, Microsoft > and Novell have > > > contributed to the "paper cert syndrome". They simply > created > > > certifications in an effort to distinguish those who are > familiar with > > their > > > products from those who don't. > > > > As part of the process of actuating those certifications, they > commissioned > > tests containing questions that could be answered "correctly" > without > > possessing an adequate knowledge of the subject matter. Even > if you are > only > > concerned with their ability to gauge book learning, the > questions have > > tended to fall far, far short of useful expectations. > > > > >The > people who use > > brain-dumps and boot > > > camps are the real culprits. They get the certifications > that get them > > the > > > jobs, then prove they don't know what they're doing, and in > turn it > casts > > a > > > shadow of doubt on those who do (know what they're doing). > You can't > > blame > > > them. Besides, all three have made their more recent > certifications > more > > > difficult with simulations, etc. And I don't think many > people doubt > that > > > someone who has passed the CCIE lab knows at least enough > to stumble > > through > > > and succeed. Anyway, I think the idea is great, and I hope > they > succeed. > > I > > > will definitely be in line to get my FCP certification. > Maybe it will > be > > > the difference between me and that other guy. Maybe you > (not anyone > > > specific -- generally). > > > > > > ""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > ""Kevin Wigle"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > If you read further into the site you will that the > FCPA is > proposing > > to > > > > > deliver hands-on testing at both junior and senior > levels of > > > > certification. > > > > > > > > > > They have buy in from the major vendors such as Cisco, > Microsoft, > > Novell > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > CL: ironically, all three of the above have contributed > mightily to > the > > > > whole "paper cert" syndrome! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Red Hat. > > > > > > > > > > Both Novell and Red Hat and talking it up as the > "capstone" to their > > > > certs, > > > > > but not as a replacement. > > > > > > > > > > People who have CCIE / CDE / RHCE certs will be awarded > a FCPA cert > > > > without > > > > > being tested. > > > > > > > > > > Which is a bit funny as the list has from time to time > "discussed" > > paper > > > > > CCIEs. > > > > > > > > > > Since the FCPA cert is just another lab, I don't know > how it would > be > > > > > different from any other. It still d
RE: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540]
I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement. The network I work for has several distribution routers that contain around 1000 T1 speed customers. If we were to static route each of their networks it would add about 1000 to 1500 lines of router configuration to the router. That would definately add to our maintenance and provisioning work and make troubleshooting harder on our techs. While I agree statics are probably the most stable way, I'm not sure it's necessarily the best way to aggrigate high volumes of customers. We currently use EIGRP at the edge with the stub command, OSPF or IS-IS would work just as well. Regardless, we would never let our IGP, that extends to the CE router, touch their IGP. About 98% of our customers are not BGP customers though. YMMV Mike --- Mike Bernico [EMAIL PROTECTED] Illinois Century Network http://www.illinois.net (217) 557-6555 > -Original Message- > From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 11:37 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540] > > > At 2:58 PM + 9/30/02, Don wrote: > >Rather than run OSPF to customers, it is generally much > better to have > >them use a default route to the ISP and for the ISP to run > static routes to > >the customer. OSPF to the customer is a huge land mine for > the ISP and > >should be avoided in almost every case. > > Don > > I agree completely with Don that an ISP _never_ should link its IGP > to that of the customer. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that > BGP needs a full routing table or will consume excessive resources. > > I remain confused why a default route wouldn't serve, unless there > are multiple connections between the ISP and customer. By "send the > block to the customer," do you mean the block is in the customer's > space? You could certainly use a second static route, which can be > generated automatically as part of your address assignment (see my > NANOG presentation, > http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9811/ppt/berk/index.htm). > > If that's not appropriate, have the customer announce his two blocks > to you with BGP and receive default from your BGP. > > > > > > >""Chris Headings"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> Good morning all. I was wondering if someone could lend > me a little help > >> about engineering OSPF in the backbone for an ISP > network. I just had a > >> couple of questions and hopefully someone can give me > some guidance.or > >even > >> some CCO links with some specific examples or better yet > any material > >> anywhere. > >> > >> Say, for example, that a customer has a small block of IP's and a > >> distribution router knows where that block is, via a > connected route, > like > >a > >> /30 on a serial link. But later down the line the > customer requests an > >> additional block of 64 IP addresses, what is the best way > to send this > >block > >> to the customer? Do I need to run OSPF on the customer > equipment? If > the > >> customer router is not running OSPF, how do the routers > know how to get > to > >> this destination? I assume via static routing??? > >> > >> Thanks as always. > >> > > > Chris Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54556&t=54540 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
I have an even more fundamental question. ;-) Why does MPLS need a routing protocol at all? Obviously, the forwarding of traffic doesn't use it. Forwarding is based on the labels. Is it for the label distribution component? Couldn't that be done with manual configuration? Priscilla nrf wrote: > > ""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote > in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > hey, friends, I'm always interested in learning something I > didn't know > > before. not claiming to know a whole lot about MPLS, but in > terms of > > operation, MPLS operates on top of a routing protocol, any > routing > protocol, > > correct? Requires that CEF is enabled, at least in the Cisco > world, but > any > > old routing protocol is fair game as the transport piece, > correct? > > > > So to me, the question would become one of the relative > merits of any > > routing protocol, without the MPLS issue clouding it. I would > think, but > > what do I know? > > > I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require > IP at all? > At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called > Internet Protocol > Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has > effectively > become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized > control-plane mechanism > for which is what it was originally intended. > > > > > > > I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. > > > > I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this > group. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large > corporation > > > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful > links will be > > > greatly appreciated . > > > > > > > > > Thanks as always > > > > > > > > > Jaspreet > > > _ > > > > > > Consultant > > > > > > > > > Andrew NZ Inc > > > Box 50 691, Porirua > > > Wellington 6230, New Zealand > > > Phone +64 4 238 0723 > > > Fax +64 4 238 0701 > > > e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached > files may contain > > > information that is legally privileged and/or confidential > to the named > > > recipient. This information is not to be used by any other > person > and/or > > > organisation. The views expressed in this document do not > necessarily > > > reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this > e-mail and > any > > > attached files in error please notify the sender by reply > e-mail and > > destroy > > > your copy of this message. Thank you. > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may > > > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private > information. > > > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender > > > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use > of > > > this email is prohibited. > > > > > -- > > -- > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54555&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CCNP Remote Access Exam [7:54525]
Check out the groupstudy archives. I replied to a message a few weeks ago regarding this exam. And whatever you do, don't use Boson. :-) Shawn K. > -Original Message- > From: amir tahir [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: CCNP Remote Access Exam [7:54525] > > Hi guys... > > I am going to write CCNP Remote Access exam on tuesday Oct 1,2002. If > anybody can give me veluable advise, I'll be thankful for that. > > Regards > > Amir > > > > - > Do you Yahoo!? > New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54551&t=54525 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why my input error and CRC always same [7:54516]
Tim Champion wrote: > > I would suggest that "input errors" is a general counter for > all input > errors and that these are then split down in to more sepcific > error types, > in this case CRC. Can anyone confirm this? Yes, that's right. Input errors is a general category. On an Ethernet interface, input errors include runts, giants, no buffer, CRC, frame, overrun, and ignored counts. Usually the amount of these specific errors will add up to the numer of input errors, although sometimes the number of input errors doesn't equal the sum of the other errors because frames may have more than one error. Also, frames may have errors that do not fall into any of the specific categories and just get counted in the input errors category, according to Cisco documentation. So, in true Cisco style, it's not an exact science. But, in this case, all the errors are CRC errors. This doesn't seem like a duplex mismatch problem, then. If it were, we would expect to see runts and collisions too, depending on the exact misconfiguration. Just seeing CRC errors indicates noise or a hardware problem. Are all these ports physically near each other? What else are they near? A motor of some sort? Are all the connected PCs near each other, or does their cabling travel together through an area where there could be noise? Could you move cables to different ports and see if the problem follows? On the other hand... Have you also troubleshooted above the physical and data-link layers. Of course, it makes sense to start at the lower layers, but. Notice that your reliability is 255/255 (100%). Cisco's calculations are trying to tell you that there isn't really a problem, at least there hasn't been a problem recently. The reliability is an exponential average over 5 minutes. The port has only seen 152 CRC errors in about 6 days. (See Last clearing of "show interface" counters 5d21h.) That's pretty insignificant. In that same time, the port received about 3 million packets. That's really a pretty low error rate. I would clear the counters, to start with, and see if the errors creep up regularly, are bunched together all at once, etc. Also, put a sniffer on the network and troubleshoot the disconnection problem. My gut feeling is that it's an upper-layer problem, but I don't have quite enough data to say this for sure. ___ Priscilla Oppenheimer www.troubleshootingnetworks.com www.priscilla.com > ""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Packet Errors > > If you have a large amount of alignment errors, FCS errors, > or late > > collisions, this may indicate: > > > > > > Duplex mismatch > > > > Bad NICs > > > > Cable problems (causing mangled packets, flapping ports, and > so on) > > > > For more information on duplex mismatch errors, see > Configuring and > > Troubleshooting Ethernet 10/100Mb Half/Full Duplex > Auto-Negotiation. The > > most common issue with speed/duplex is that customers > manually set the > > speed/duplex on the switch, but not on the > workstation/server. Auto > > speed/duplex on one side and 100/Full-duplex on the other > side is a > > misconfiguration and will result in a duplex mismtach. > > > > Larry Letterman > > Cisco Systems > > > > > > Sim, CT (Chee Tong) wrote: > > > > >Hi.. Some users complaint to me that their application > getting > > >disconnection. I have fixed the speed and duplex of their > switch port at > > >both sides and changed the cable but still the same. And the > strange > thing > > >is that all the problem ports are all having the same error > pattern-same > > >number of input errors and CRC. The rest of errors are all > zero-as shown > > >below.Those other ports that have different number input > errors and > CRC > > >are not having disconnection problem. Any idea what can I > do on those > > >ports that having disconnection problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >SW4>sh int fas0/21 > > > > > >FastEthernet0/21 is up, line protocol is up > > > > > > Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 00d0.790c.d315 (bia > 00d0.790c.d315) > > > > > > MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, > > > > > > reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 > > > > > > Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set > > > > > > Keepalive not set > > > > > > Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX > > > > > > ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 > > > > > > Last input never, output 00:00:00, output hang never > > > > > > Last clearing of "show interface" counters 5d21h > > > > > > Queueing strategy: fifo > > > > > > Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops > > > > > > 5 minute input rate 2000 bits/sec, 5 packets/sec > > > > > > 5 minute output rate 52000 bits/sec, 23 packets/sec > > > > > > 2859951 packets input, 283856132 bytes > > > > > > Received 213447 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 > throttles > > > > > > 152 input errors, 152 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored > > > >
Re: E&M [7:54475]
Analog = 1 Digital = 24 Ismail M Saeed wrote: >All, >Does anyone know how many voice channels the E&M interface carry ? > >Thanks and best regards -- Bruce Enders Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chesapeake NetCraftsmeno:(410)-757-3050, c:(443)-994-0678 1290 Bay Dale Drive, Suite 312 WWW: http://www.netcraftsmen.net Arnold, MD 21012-2325 Cisco CCSI# 96047 Efax 443-331-0651 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54553&t=54475 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Show running-config all at once [7:54367]
I myself have found that if you do a show run in hyperterm, then hit enter a bunch of times and scroll up, the the scrambling above the window goes away. It's only between the shaded area and the white box. Once it's all in the shaded area, it should all be in order. Or you just just use SecureCRT, as well. :) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54552&t=54367 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540]
At 2:58 PM + 9/30/02, Don wrote: >Rather than run OSPF to customers, it is generally much better to have >them use a default route to the ISP and for the ISP to run static routes to >the customer. OSPF to the customer is a huge land mine for the ISP and >should be avoided in almost every case. > Don I agree completely with Don that an ISP _never_ should link its IGP to that of the customer. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that BGP needs a full routing table or will consume excessive resources. I remain confused why a default route wouldn't serve, unless there are multiple connections between the ISP and customer. By "send the block to the customer," do you mean the block is in the customer's space? You could certainly use a second static route, which can be generated automatically as part of your address assignment (see my NANOG presentation, http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9811/ppt/berk/index.htm). If that's not appropriate, have the customer announce his two blocks to you with BGP and receive default from your BGP. > > >""Chris Headings"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> Good morning all. I was wondering if someone could lend me a little help >> about engineering OSPF in the backbone for an ISP network. I just had a >> couple of questions and hopefully someone can give me some guidance.or >even >> some CCO links with some specific examples or better yet any material >> anywhere. >> >> Say, for example, that a customer has a small block of IP's and a >> distribution router knows where that block is, via a connected route, like >a >> /30 on a serial link. But later down the line the customer requests an >> additional block of 64 IP addresses, what is the best way to send this >block >> to the customer? Do I need to run OSPF on the customer equipment? If the >> customer router is not running OSPF, how do the routers know how to get to >> this destination? I assume via static routing??? >> >> Thanks as always. >> > > Chris Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54550&t=54540 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Voucher for DA/DP new tests? [7:54538]
Dear Persio, Don't have any idea but if you got any ifo then kindly let me know as well. Thanks in Advance! Ahmad Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54549&t=54538 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540]
Great... So it looks like I would then use the "redistribute static subnets" as well as the "redistribute connected subnets" command within the OSPF process to make sure ALL ospf enabled routers would know how to reach that specifc, statically routed/connected, destination? Chris Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54548&t=54540 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BGP Aggregation in IOS 12.2 [7:54528]
Well, this is exactly what Doyle has in Vol 2 p.188 where the router CONFIGURED with thte "aggregate-address" command shows the more-specific routes in its BGP table with S> entries and to suppress the more-specific routes you add the "no-summary" keyword. Doyle's config clearly has the "network" statements removed to prove this behavior. Thanks for the replies. Elmer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stephane Litkowski Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 7:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BGP Aggregation in IOS 12.2 [7:54528] To announce your loopback interfaces, u can also use redistribute connected with a route-map to filter which connected you want to redistribute (only loopbacks) ... ""Jim Brown"" a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Elmer, > > The way I read your config. You have enabled a single interface with > EIGRP routing, interface loopback17 of network 192.168.199.0/24. > > You are redistributing all of EIGRP into BGP which only includes this > one network. > > You are aggregating 192.168.192.0 255.255.248.0. The aggregate address > needs a minimum of one network in the aggregate address range to > advertise the supernet and more specific underlying routes. > > The BGP table is exactly right as far as I can tell. The only networks > that should appear are the networks redistributed from EIGRP, > 192.169.199.0/24, and the aggregate, 192.168.192.0/21, which is using > the previous /24 network for its very existence. > > You must enter EACH of the loopbacks under the BGP process using > 'network 192.168.192.0 mask 255.255.255.0', 'network 192.168.193.0 mask > 255.255.255.0'. > > The mask statement is not necessary in this case, I just always use it > for consistency. It is a personal preference. The mask statement is only > necessary for networks outside their classful boundary. > > The other alternative is to include all of the loopbacks under the EIGRP > process and have them redistributed into BGP which you already have > setup, but currently you are only redistributing a single /24. If you > want them all to appear, you need to either enter them under the BGP > process with a network statement or redistribute them from EIGRP. > > The route-map you have included in the configs looks like you are > planning on only advertising a subset of the more specific /24 routes. > You should look at the suppress-map option under the aggregate address > command as well as distribute list under the interface or neighbor > statement. > > All three of these would accomplish the same result. > > -Original Message- > From: cebuano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: BGP Aggregation in IOS 12.2 [7:54528] > > > Hi all. > Has 12.2 changed in that when you do an "aggregate-address" the > configured > router only shows the aggregate route and not include the more-specific > ( or > aggregatED ) routes? Here's what I got... > This config is "supposed" to allow me to advertise both the aggregate > and > more-specific routes. But if this has changed then i'll have to think of > another solution... > Thanks. > Elmer > > Stowe-2504#s > ! > interface Loopback10 > ip address 192.168.192.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback11 > ip address 192.168.193.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback12 > ip address 192.168.194.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback13 > ip address 192.168.195.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback14 > ip address 192.168.196.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback15 > ip address 192.168.197.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback16 > ip address 192.168.198.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback17 > ip address 192.168.199.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Serial0 > bandwidth 64 > ip address 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.252 > ! > router eigrp 100 > network 192.168.199.0 > ! > router bgp 100 > aggregate-address 192.168.192.0 255.255.248.0 > redistribute eigrp 100 > neighbor 192.168.1.253 remote-as 200 > neighbor 192.168.1.253 send-community > neighbor 192.168.1.253 route-map community out > ! > access-list 101 permit ip host 192.168.192.0 host 255.255.248.0 > route-map community permit 10 > match ip address 101 > set community none > ! > route-map community permit 20 > set community no-export > ! > > Stowe-2504#sh ip bgp > BGP table version is 9, local router ID is 192.168.199.1 > Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - > internal > Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete > >Network Next HopMetric LocPrf Weight Path > *> 192.168.192.0/21 0.0.0.032768 i > *> 192.168.199.00.0.0.0 0 32768 ? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54547&t=54528 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Re: E&M [7:54475]
Hi Ismail, I think you need to reframe your question. If you ask me E&M is an interface type, and the numbers of channels would depend upon the line or trunk on which you are using this interface type. So on a T1 facility configured with a E&M interface, the facility would be having 24 channels. Regards, Vikram "Ismail M Saeed" wrote: All, Does anyone know how many voice channels the E&M interface carry ? Thanks and best regards Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from http://www.planetm.co.in Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54546&t=54475 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
At 2:52 AM + 9/30/02, nrf wrote: >""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> hey, friends, I'm always interested in learning something I didn't know >> before. not claiming to know a whole lot about MPLS, but in terms of >> operation, MPLS operates on top of a routing protocol, any routing >protocol, >> correct? Requires that CEF is enabled, at least in the Cisco world, but >any >> old routing protocol is fair game as the transport piece, correct? >> >> So to me, the question would become one of the relative merits of any >> routing protocol, without the MPLS issue clouding it. I would think, but > > what do I know? As long as the routing protocol gives MPLS path setup the topology information it needs (see below), the protocol is irrelevant. Realistically, most such development is being done in ISIS and OSPF. So a direct comparison between routing protocols and MPLS doesn't make sense, although when I was at Nortel, there was a widespread (and wrong) assumption that somehow, magically, MPLS would replace IP. Why are you considering MPLS? I still consider it more of a carrier mechanism than one for enterprises. What problem are you trying to solve? > > >I got an even more fundamental question - why does MPLS require IP at all? >At the risk of starting a religious way, it's not called Internet Protocol >Label Switching, it's Multi-protocol label switching. MPLS has effectively >become a feature of IP, as opposed to a generalized control-plane mechanism >for which is what it was originally intended. > Let me offer a different way to look at it. MPLS really isn't monolithic. As a sub-IP protocol in the IETF, basic MPLS still has separable forwarding and control plane aspects. The control plane involves path setup protocols such as RSVP-TE and LDP. These, in turn, have to get overall topology information from _somewhere_. Besides IP routing protocols and PNNI, what is there for that purpose that wouldn't need to be invented? Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) is certainly not IP only, as packet forwarding is only one of its modes. It can set up forwarding based on wavelengths, time slots, or ports. The first MPLS predecessor, Ipsilon's (now part of Nokia) IP switching was planned as a faster means of lookup than conventional routing. With advances in L3 hardware and software, that simply didn't turn out to be useful or even scalable. Those initial implementations, by Ipsilon, were ATM dependent both for path setup and transport. > >> >> I suppose there are always the issue of interoperability. >> >> I would certainly appreciate the wisdom of the folks on this group. >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> ""Kohli, Jaspreet"" wrote in message >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> > I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation >> > should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be > > > greatly appreciated . Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54545&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IGX firmware upgrade [7:54441]
Hi Puro, Upgrading the Firmware image of a UFM (for that matter any non-redundant) card will take it kind-of out-of-service, and it won't be available to perform it's regular operations. So plan the downtime window for this purpose, in advance. Regards, Vikram "puro prasad" wrote: hi all, I have a UFM card with 12 PVCs configured and running. I need to upgrade the firmware of the card which would take round 10 mins. and the then the card will be resetted. Will the data traffic get affected during the upgrade period?? anyone knows. to Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from http://www.planetm.co.in Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54544&t=54441 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540]
Rather than run OSPF to customers, it is generally much better to have them use a default route to the ISP and for the ISP to run static routes to the customer. OSPF to the customer is a huge land mine for the ISP and should be avoided in almost every case. Don ""Chris Headings"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Good morning all. I was wondering if someone could lend me a little help > about engineering OSPF in the backbone for an ISP network. I just had a > couple of questions and hopefully someone can give me some guidance.or even > some CCO links with some specific examples or better yet any material > anywhere. > > Say, for example, that a customer has a small block of IP's and a > distribution router knows where that block is, via a connected route, like a > /30 on a serial link. But later down the line the customer requests an > additional block of 64 IP addresses, what is the best way to send this block > to the customer? Do I need to run OSPF on the customer equipment? If the > customer router is not running OSPF, how do the routers know how to get to > this destination? I assume via static routing??? > > Thanks as always. > > Chris Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54541&t=54540 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF for ISPs [7:54540]
> Say, for example, that a customer has a small block of IP's and a > distribution router knows where that block is, via a connected route, like a > /30 on a serial link. But later down the line the customer requests an > additional block of 64 IP addresses, what is the best way to send this block > to the customer? Do I need to run OSPF on the customer equipment? If the > customer router is not running OSPF, how do the routers know how to get to > this destination? I assume via static routing??? Easiest way to do this without running OSPF on the CPE is to put a static route on the router at your end of the link, and redistribute the static route into OSPF. How are you getting the /30 into OSPF at the moment? If you are using a network statement make sure that you have set the customer interface as passive - the last thing you want is a customer tinkering with the router and injecting bad routes into your network. Alternatively you could redistribute connected routes into OSPF, removing the need for the network statement. -- Russell Heilling http://www.ccie.org.uk/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54543&t=54540 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lookee Lookie - new certifications!!!! [7:54435]
[snip] >>work, but I may not be able to answer the question correctly on paper. And, >>in my opinion, it's more important to be able to "walk the walk" than "talk >>the talk". What do you think? > > > You make some excellent points. I think it's more than a binary "talk > the talk" vs. "walk the walk," the first being answering tests and > the second being demonstrating performance. > > It's long been a Cisco instructional principle that people learn in > different ways. Some are visual, some are conceptual, some are aural, > and some are tactile (i.e., hands on). I tend to be visual and > conceptual. > > You describe a very real-world requirement to "talk the walk" -- to > teach something, which is yet another skill set. Mind you, I find > that teaching or the equivalent writing is a good way to learn. > the whole thing sounds nice, yes, but i guess it fixes something that needs to be cured. i sometimes get the opinion that everyone is doing certs to make hr jobs easier. it's not a hard job to sort the cv in two piles: certification and no certification. so know you add a third one? i doubt that it will give more credit to your cert, just another one. as long as people get jobs only on their certs and not on what they are and what they have done so far, nothing will change... oh, yes, someone is making more money... just my 2cents -bis Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54542&t=54435 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OSPF for ISPs [7:54540]
Good morning all. I was wondering if someone could lend me a little help about engineering OSPF in the backbone for an ISP network. I just had a couple of questions and hopefully someone can give me some guidance or even some CCO links with some specific examples or better yet any material anywhere Say, for example, that a customer has a small block of IPs and a distribution router knows where that block is, via a connected route, like a /30 on a serial link. But later down the line the customer requests an additional block of 64 IP addresses, what is the best way to send this block to the customer? Do I need to run OSPF on the customer equipment? If the customer router is not running OSPF, how do the routers know how to get to this destination? I assume via static routing??? Thanks as always Chris Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54540&t=54540 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why my input error and CRC always same [7:54516]
I would suggest that "input errors" is a general counter for all input errors and that these are then split down in to more sepcific error types, in this case CRC. Can anyone confirm this? ""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Packet Errors > If you have a large amount of alignment errors, FCS errors, or late > collisions, this may indicate: > > > Duplex mismatch > > Bad NICs > > Cable problems (causing mangled packets, flapping ports, and so on) > > For more information on duplex mismatch errors, see Configuring and > Troubleshooting Ethernet 10/100Mb Half/Full Duplex Auto-Negotiation. The > most common issue with speed/duplex is that customers manually set the > speed/duplex on the switch, but not on the workstation/server. Auto > speed/duplex on one side and 100/Full-duplex on the other side is a > misconfiguration and will result in a duplex mismtach. > > Larry Letterman > Cisco Systems > > > Sim, CT (Chee Tong) wrote: > > >Hi.. Some users complaint to me that their application getting > >disconnection. I have fixed the speed and duplex of their switch port at > >both sides and changed the cable but still the same. And the strange thing > >is that all the problem ports are all having the same error pattern-same > >number of input errors and CRC. The rest of errors are all zero-as shown > >below.Those other ports that have different number input errors and CRC > >are not having disconnection problem. Any idea what can I do on those > >ports that having disconnection problem? > > > > > > > > > > > >SW4>sh int fas0/21 > > > >FastEthernet0/21 is up, line protocol is up > > > > Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 00d0.790c.d315 (bia 00d0.790c.d315) > > > > MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10 Kbit, DLY 100 usec, > > > > reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 > > > > Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set > > > > Keepalive not set > > > > Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, 100BaseTX/FX > > > > ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 > > > > Last input never, output 00:00:00, output hang never > > > > Last clearing of "show interface" counters 5d21h > > > > Queueing strategy: fifo > > > > Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 0/75, 0 drops > > > > 5 minute input rate 2000 bits/sec, 5 packets/sec > > > > 5 minute output rate 52000 bits/sec, 23 packets/sec > > > > 2859951 packets input, 283856132 bytes > > > > Received 213447 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles > > > > 152 input errors, 152 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored > > > > 0 watchdog, 0 multicast > > > > 0 input packets with dribble condition detected > > > > 8585472 packets output, 2364752071 bytes, 0 underruns > > > > 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets > > > > 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred > > > > 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier > > > > 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out > > > >Cat29-L7-4> > > > > > >== > >De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en > >is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht > >onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en > >de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. > >== > >The information contained in this message may be confidential > >and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you > >receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents > >herein and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > > > > >== > -- > > Larry Letterman > Network Engineer > Cisco Systems Inc. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54539&t=54516 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voucher for DA/DP new tests? [7:54538]
Does anybody know if they anybody is going to distribute voucher for the new CCDA and CCDP tests coming the next few weeks? Regards, Persio Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54538&t=54538 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Show running-config all at once [7:54367]
Don,
Yes you can view the entire config at once, enter the following first
terminal length 0
Debbie
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Don Claybrook wrote:
> Hello.
>
> A customer asked me if I knew of a way to show the running configuration
all
> at once, not page-at-a-time ("-more-"). I have no idea, but any hints,
> clues, or outright answers would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54537&t=54367
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MLS issue - MSFC not learning switch address [7:54531]
I get the exact same thing on my 6506's. However, everything I've found on Cisco's website leads me to believe this isn't an issue. They haven't specifically said that, but the MLS troubleshooting doesn't even mention it (at least not that I've found). Let me know if you find out anything. Robert ""Hitesh Pathak R"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Dear Group, > > i m facing a piculiar problem. i have 2 cat 6509's switches as CORE > connected back to back. Both the switches has 2 MSFC's (total four) as a > redundent. I have configured HSRP between them and even enabled MLS on both > the switches. > > I have followed proper Cisco documentation for configuring MLS in cat6k > environment. However when I am giving command "sh mls rp ip" on both my > active MSFC's , it does not show the switch's mac address. > > When I issue command "sh mls" on the switch , it shows the MSFC15 as the > designated router learned with some Vlan's MAC addresses as well. The output > of "sh mls rp ip" on MSFC looks like this :- > > router currently aware of following 0 switch(es): > no switch id's currently exists in domain > > > can anybody help me debug this ?? > > > > > DISCLAIMER: > Information contained and transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to Wipro > Limited and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it > is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential > or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If this is a forwarded > message, the content of this E-MAIL may not have been sent with the > authority of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, an agent of > the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering the > information to the named recipient, you are notified that any use, > distribution, transmission, printing, copying or dissemination of this > information in any way or in any manner is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please delete this mail & notify us > immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54536&t=54531 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Perl/Expect to Console? [7:54344]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > I've written some Perl scripts (on a LINUX box) to drive some router > tests. Perl is something I've taught myself, and don't have the > experience with it I do with C. > > I got some vague advice from one of our people to write TCL/Expect > and plug that in -- another language to learn -- or to use a telnet > client. Well, of course telnet would work manually -- but can I > fork/spawn a subprocess and connect it to Perl, such that STDIN and > STDOUT of telnet appear as Perl files? > > Examples or pointers to them welcome. > hi howard, here is a link on how to use expect from perl: http://search.cpan.org/search?mode=all&query=expect i used it quite a while back an liked it very much. makes some tasks simple. if you want you can contact me offline. hth -bis Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54535&t=54344 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP Aggregation in IOS 12.2 [7:54528]
To announce your loopback interfaces, u can also use redistribute connected with a route-map to filter which connected you want to redistribute (only loopbacks) ... ""Jim Brown"" a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Elmer, > > The way I read your config. You have enabled a single interface with > EIGRP routing, interface loopback17 of network 192.168.199.0/24. > > You are redistributing all of EIGRP into BGP which only includes this > one network. > > You are aggregating 192.168.192.0 255.255.248.0. The aggregate address > needs a minimum of one network in the aggregate address range to > advertise the supernet and more specific underlying routes. > > The BGP table is exactly right as far as I can tell. The only networks > that should appear are the networks redistributed from EIGRP, > 192.169.199.0/24, and the aggregate, 192.168.192.0/21, which is using > the previous /24 network for its very existence. > > You must enter EACH of the loopbacks under the BGP process using > 'network 192.168.192.0 mask 255.255.255.0', 'network 192.168.193.0 mask > 255.255.255.0'. > > The mask statement is not necessary in this case, I just always use it > for consistency. It is a personal preference. The mask statement is only > necessary for networks outside their classful boundary. > > The other alternative is to include all of the loopbacks under the EIGRP > process and have them redistributed into BGP which you already have > setup, but currently you are only redistributing a single /24. If you > want them all to appear, you need to either enter them under the BGP > process with a network statement or redistribute them from EIGRP. > > The route-map you have included in the configs looks like you are > planning on only advertising a subset of the more specific /24 routes. > You should look at the suppress-map option under the aggregate address > command as well as distribute list under the interface or neighbor > statement. > > All three of these would accomplish the same result. > > -Original Message- > From: cebuano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: BGP Aggregation in IOS 12.2 [7:54528] > > > Hi all. > Has 12.2 changed in that when you do an "aggregate-address" the > configured > router only shows the aggregate route and not include the more-specific > ( or > aggregatED ) routes? Here's what I got... > This config is "supposed" to allow me to advertise both the aggregate > and > more-specific routes. But if this has changed then i'll have to think of > another solution... > Thanks. > Elmer > > Stowe-2504#s > ! > interface Loopback10 > ip address 192.168.192.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback11 > ip address 192.168.193.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback12 > ip address 192.168.194.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback13 > ip address 192.168.195.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback14 > ip address 192.168.196.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback15 > ip address 192.168.197.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback16 > ip address 192.168.198.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Loopback17 > ip address 192.168.199.1 255.255.255.0 > ! > interface Serial0 > bandwidth 64 > ip address 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.252 > ! > router eigrp 100 > network 192.168.199.0 > ! > router bgp 100 > aggregate-address 192.168.192.0 255.255.248.0 > redistribute eigrp 100 > neighbor 192.168.1.253 remote-as 200 > neighbor 192.168.1.253 send-community > neighbor 192.168.1.253 route-map community out > ! > access-list 101 permit ip host 192.168.192.0 host 255.255.248.0 > route-map community permit 10 > match ip address 101 > set community none > ! > route-map community permit 20 > set community no-export > ! > > Stowe-2504#sh ip bgp > BGP table version is 9, local router ID is 192.168.199.1 > Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - > internal > Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete > >Network Next HopMetric LocPrf Weight Path > *> 192.168.192.0/21 0.0.0.032768 i > *> 192.168.199.00.0.0.0 0 32768 ? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54534&t=54528 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCNP Remote Access Exam [7:54525]
The 2 remote access books from Cisco will do the trick. I didn't use Boson and still passed. Theo "amir tahir" Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/30/2002 01:58 PM Please respond to "amir tahir" To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:CCNP Remote Access Exam [7:54525] Hi guys... I am going to write CCNP Remote Access exam on tuesday Oct 1,2002. If anybody can give me veluable advise, I'll be thankful for that. Regards Amir - Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54526&t=54525 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BGP Aggregation in IOS 12.2 [7:54528]
Elmer, The way I read your config. You have enabled a single interface with EIGRP routing, interface loopback17 of network 192.168.199.0/24. You are redistributing all of EIGRP into BGP which only includes this one network. You are aggregating 192.168.192.0 255.255.248.0. The aggregate address needs a minimum of one network in the aggregate address range to advertise the supernet and more specific underlying routes. The BGP table is exactly right as far as I can tell. The only networks that should appear are the networks redistributed from EIGRP, 192.169.199.0/24, and the aggregate, 192.168.192.0/21, which is using the previous /24 network for its very existence. You must enter EACH of the loopbacks under the BGP process using 'network 192.168.192.0 mask 255.255.255.0', 'network 192.168.193.0 mask 255.255.255.0'. The mask statement is not necessary in this case, I just always use it for consistency. It is a personal preference. The mask statement is only necessary for networks outside their classful boundary. The other alternative is to include all of the loopbacks under the EIGRP process and have them redistributed into BGP which you already have setup, but currently you are only redistributing a single /24. If you want them all to appear, you need to either enter them under the BGP process with a network statement or redistribute them from EIGRP. The route-map you have included in the configs looks like you are planning on only advertising a subset of the more specific /24 routes. You should look at the suppress-map option under the aggregate address command as well as distribute list under the interface or neighbor statement. All three of these would accomplish the same result. -Original Message- From: cebuano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BGP Aggregation in IOS 12.2 [7:54528] Hi all. Has 12.2 changed in that when you do an "aggregate-address" the configured router only shows the aggregate route and not include the more-specific ( or aggregatED ) routes? Here's what I got... This config is "supposed" to allow me to advertise both the aggregate and more-specific routes. But if this has changed then i'll have to think of another solution... Thanks. Elmer Stowe-2504#s ! interface Loopback10 ip address 192.168.192.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Loopback11 ip address 192.168.193.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Loopback12 ip address 192.168.194.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Loopback13 ip address 192.168.195.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Loopback14 ip address 192.168.196.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Loopback15 ip address 192.168.197.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Loopback16 ip address 192.168.198.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Loopback17 ip address 192.168.199.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Serial0 bandwidth 64 ip address 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.252 ! router eigrp 100 network 192.168.199.0 ! router bgp 100 aggregate-address 192.168.192.0 255.255.248.0 redistribute eigrp 100 neighbor 192.168.1.253 remote-as 200 neighbor 192.168.1.253 send-community neighbor 192.168.1.253 route-map community out ! access-list 101 permit ip host 192.168.192.0 host 255.255.248.0 route-map community permit 10 match ip address 101 set community none ! route-map community permit 20 set community no-export ! Stowe-2504#sh ip bgp BGP table version is 9, local router ID is 192.168.199.1 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next HopMetric LocPrf Weight Path *> 192.168.192.0/21 0.0.0.032768 i *> 192.168.199.00.0.0.0 0 32768 ? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54533&t=54528 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS Vs EIGRP [7:54507]
>From the SP point of view either use OSPF or ISIS for scalability, standards and QoS features. For example only these two protocols will allow you to do traffic engineering with MPLS over your backbone. From the client point side EIGRP is not one of the protocols to be used between PE-CE. MPLS course material didn't spoke about using EIGRP with MPLS. >From: "Kohli, Jaspreet" > >I am looking for a comparative design question: Why a large corporation >should or should not use MPLS over EIGRP . Any useful links will be >greatly appreciated . > > >Thanks as always > > >Jaspreet >_ > >Consultant > > >Andrew NZ Inc >Box 50 691, Porirua >Wellington 6230, New Zealand >Phone +64 4 238 0723 >Fax +64 4 238 0701 >e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >WARNING: The contents of this e-mail and any attached files may contain >information that is legally privileged and/or confidential to the named >recipient. This information is not to be used by any other person and/or >organisation. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily >reflect those of Andrew NZ Inc If you have received this e-mail and any >attached files in error please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy >your copy of this message. Thank you. > > >This message is for the designated recipient only and may >contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. >If you have received it in error, please notify the sender >immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of >this email is prohibited. > misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54532&t=54507 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MLS issue - MSFC not learning switch address [7:54531]
Dear Group, i m facing a piculiar problem. i have 2 cat 6509's switches as CORE connected back to back. Both the switches has 2 MSFC's (total four) as a redundent. I have configured HSRP between them and even enabled MLS on both the switches. I have followed proper Cisco documentation for configuring MLS in cat6k environment. However when I am giving command "sh mls rp ip" on both my active MSFC's , it does not show the switch's mac address. When I issue command "sh mls" on the switch , it shows the MSFC15 as the designated router learned with some Vlan's MAC addresses as well. The output of "sh mls rp ip" on MSFC looks like this :- router currently aware of following 0 switch(es): no switch id's currently exists in domain can anybody help me debug this ?? DISCLAIMER: Information contained and transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to Wipro Limited and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If this is a forwarded message, the content of this E-MAIL may not have been sent with the authority of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, an agent of the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering the information to the named recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution, transmission, printing, copying or dissemination of this information in any way or in any manner is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete this mail & notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54531&t=54531 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
