RE: CCIE Power Sessions 2003 [7:72222]
No, not yet. I just took the (CCIE) power session in LA last week. They are supposed to come out with a URL or some other type of access to all who attended via email in the next week or two. Believe me, the power session was unbelievable. There was a lot of information that was candid and up-front. I don't think it would be fair to make the material available to those that did not pay for the conference to those that did not. That's just my view on it, but to each their own... Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -Original Message- From: Matrix_pk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 10:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CCIE Power Sessions 2003 [7:7] Anyone aware of URL for 2003 networkers power session? Thanks, Shahid - Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72225&t=7 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Any LANE on CCNP switching [7:72197]
it doesn't seem like anyone wants to commit and possibly tell you not to worry about LANE when you might have some questions on it in the test. From everything I have seen on line, in the books I have recently studied and from the BCMSN class I took last week, I would say NO> I don't think there are any LANE questions on the 640-604 test. David Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72224&t=72197 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCIE Power Sessions 2003 [7:72222]
Anyone aware of URL for 2003 networkers power session? Thanks, Shahid - Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7&t=7 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE:Security Practical Studies [7:72162]
What bothers me is that Cisco's implementation of a protocol doesn't always match the RFC. At least from my limited experience in reading the RFC's; OSPF for example should not be able to summarize the backbone area, but in Cisco's implementation of OSPF you can summarize area 0. I hear Cisco might remove that from the IOS, but who knows. On the other hand if you can wade through the RFC's your understanding of how the protocol was intended to work, will increase dramatically. I wish I had the time to get deep into the RFC's, but unfortunately at this point in my studies it probably isn't going to help me in the Lab in a few weeks. As always, I appreciate any insight from the rest of the group! Regards, Jason ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > At 3:44 PM + 7/13/03, Hemingway wrote: > >""Jason Viera"" wrote in message > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> The individuals writing the book probably aren't privy to any exam > content > >> changes that are around the corner unless they are a part of the CCIE > >team, > >> another misconception is that Cisco Press is in close contact with > >> technology changes that Cisco Systems is actually working on. What many > >> people don't understand is that it takes a while to write and publish a > >book > >> in a cost effective manner, > > > >I don't know about the back end production part ( final copy, typesetting, > >printing, distribution ) > > 3-6 months, depending on the publisher and priority. Of course, > distribution gets variable with the priorities of the booksellers. > > There may be several months of negotiation before the contract and > outline are approved. > > I've written books in anywhere between 3 and 12 months. > > > > > > >One should be reading the command references, reading the config quides, and > >concentrating on fundamentals. Any routing protocol over NMBA ( with all > >possible combinations for the links ), ISDN backup options, authentication > >anyplace it is possible, redistribution between any two porotocols ( with > >all possible mechanisms for doing so ). The presence of the 3550's has not > >changed any of the fundamentals one needs to master. > > > >An important Lab skill is finding things on the CD. > > > >Much as I may or may not like it intellectually, practically speaking, there > >is little need to spend time reading RFC's in prep for the lab. I've been > >there enough to state categorically that I have seen nothing that made me > >wish I spent more time with the RFC's and plenty to make me wish I'd spent > >more time with Cisco's docs and with configuring things based on the topics > >stated above. > > I might suggest there's benefit in what I might call reading "beyond" > the RFCs, or spending less effort on the protocol specifications and > more on the working group mailing list and on the RFCs that introduce > extensions to deal with hard problems for the regular protocol. The > RIP RFC does have an excellent discussion of split horizon and poison > reverse. Harder to read, but there, is a great deal of the underlying > principles of redistribution in OSPF. I only really understood BGP > after getting the sense of RPSL. RFC1812, the Router Requirements > Document, gives lots of answers. Our work on BGP performance, > hopefully on its way to getting an RFC number, clarifies ambiguous > definitions in 1771 > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-05.txt) > Draft 21 (last I looked) of the revised 1771 is far more accurate and > informative. > > > > >The CCIE Lab is about configuring Cisco equipment in a manner that satifies > >the requirements of Cisco's test. Nothing more. Nothing less. > > > > > > > > > >> Jason > >> ""NKP"" wrote in message > >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > I dont think that the book is all that bad , probably I am an > >> > amateur in Security . > >> > The thing I still can not understand is why is it that that > when > >a > >> > CCIE Practical Studies book is published by Cisco Press , some of > there > >> > topics become obsolete in a couple of months or the syllabus changes FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ISDN ... connectivity [7:72051]
nope. not possible however with three routers u can -Nakul ""H T"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi, > Can we connect 2 ISDN ports back to back for test ? (with out ISDN > simulation device) > Is there any kind cable to do this job? > > > > cheers > Heiman. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72220&t=72051 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: N+1 redundancy [7:72202]
At 8:02 PM + 7/13/03, annlee wrote: >N+1 means one more than that required. Suppose you have a large switch which >can operate half the blade capacity with one power supply and it requires 2 >power supplies to operate fully populated. Then, when it is half-populated, >dual power supplies provides N+1, because it has one more than the >requirement. When fully populated, it has N+1 if it has 3 power supplies in >place and available. > >This is the kind of HA requirement typically demanded by telcos and others >for whom off-line is simply not an option. > >HTH > >Annlee Indeed, there are HA techniques, more applicable to communications channels, that may offer more or less resources than N+1. I have seen nuclear war command and control systems that would send out a launch message on up to 23 different media. 1+1 actively transmits the same data on two links, usually accepting the first copy that has a correct error check sequence and discarding the other. Probably the most common application is SSCOP, the data link protocol for SS7 and Q.2931. 1:1 only one active link, but a dedicated standby link (think FDDI) M:N N backups for M active resources. > >""Lo Ching"" wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Dear All, >> >> What's the meaning of N+1 redundancy? I found a chassis switch with 4 >power >> supply and it states N+1 power redundancy. >> >> Thanks. >> >> rgds, >> Lo Ching Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72219&t=72202 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Frame-relay & HSRP [7:72166]
Ahh yes.. you can do this also.. pending you have 12.0(5)T or later. The only issue with that is you might want to modify the "frame-relay end-to-end keepalive timer" As you stated, Within the 15 second intervals x3 you are looking at a good 45 seconds before the WAN interface goes down down ,plus another 10 for the HSRP holdtimer. mccloud mike wrote: > > I have seen this problem before with frame. LMI being local to > the frame switch means the interface does not go down and > backups routes do not kick in. One way to overcome this is to > monitor layer 2 by using the “frame-relay end-to-end > keepalive mode bidirectional” command within a map class > on both sides. This command sends a keepalive every 15 seconds, > if 3 are missed the interface will change to down/down even > though the interface is receiving LMI from the frame switch. I > hope this helps. > > Mike > > > Masaru Umetsu wrote: > > > > Dear all > > > > I have a question about frame-relay. Network Diagram is below. > > > > R1* * *R3 > > | * FR * | > > R2* * *R4 > > > > I configured a HSRP between R1 and R2, R3 and R4. > > R1,R3 are Active router.(R2,R4 are Standby router) > > And I configured standby track in a Wan side of R1,R3. > > > > When I disabled(shutdown the interface) the serial0/0 of R1 , > > then R2 became Active router. It's ok. > > But R3 didn't detect a down of Wan side,so serial0/0 of R3 is > > up-up. > > Therefore,I can't send a data between R2 and R4. > > Regarding Frame-relay configuration, I configured frame-relay > in > > main-interface. Is it a mechanism of Frame-relay in > > main-interface ? > > I don't know in detail. Should I use sub-interface & > > point-2-point > > definition in frame-relay to use HSRP standby track ? Please > > explain me > > about this problem. > > > > > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72218&t=72166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCDA - CERT [7:72215]
I am looking for a good CCDA book and will take test next month. I will be greatful for any tips and info Thanks = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Please send replys to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = - Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72215&t=72215 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
640-861 CCDA [7:72217]
I am looking to test next month (CCDA 640-861). I am looking for any and all books, tips and info to help test next month. Thanks = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Please send replys to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = - Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72217&t=72217 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CID 640-025 - ?? [7:72205]
Basically, since there are band-new tests, the books that started to be written 1-3 yrs ago most likely won't cover 100% of the exam topics -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: CID 640-025 - ?? [7:72205] I don't think that we should divulge any specifics about tests but.you should now that the CCNP-class exams have recently gone through many changes (hence the tons of ccnp-class beta exams).. Cheers, Andre' -Original Message- From: Cisco Nuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 12:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CID 640-025 - ?? [7:72205] Hello,Getting ready to take the 640-025 CID exam. Using Matthew H. Birkner's CID book from Cisco Press. Going over the topics covered in the exam @http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/current _exams/640-025.htmlI noticed that there was NO mention of IPX, AppleTalk, Windows Networking and SNA Design at all? Why?Does this mean that these topics will NOT be tested on the exam even though the book has devoted chapters to these same topics?Please advise.Also, any tips regarding taking this exam is very well appreciated. I mean, are there any scenario type long questions with diagrams etc. asked or is it just like any other regular exam with multiple choice questions - just click a, b, c, d or e ?Thank you.Sincerely. Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. For more information about Barclays Capital, please visit our web site at http://www.barcap.com. Internet communications are not secure and therefore the Barclays Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Although the Barclays Group operates anti-virus programmes, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being passed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Barclays Group. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays Group for operational or business reasons. For more information about Barclays Capital, please visit our web site at http://www.barcap.com. Internet communications are not secure and therefore the Barclays Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Although the Barclays Group operates anti-virus programmes, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being passed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Barclays Group. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays Group for operational or business reasons. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72209&t=72205 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microsoft Netmeeting 2620 w/ NAT [7:72192]
I got Microsoft Netmeeting to work through a 2620 w/ NAT in a lab environment, but just for the internal clients. I can get a user on the inside network to initiate a NetMeeting session w/ a machine on the outside network and it works fine. If I try to initiate a session from the outside to the same machine on the inside, it won't work, the call just times out. I'm running IOS Version 12.3(1a) (c2600-ik9o3s3-mz.123-1a) that supports H323 and am using NAT w/ ip overload and the external ip address as the Nated address that the outside world will see. I've been looking through newsgroups, Cisco, and Google but and having a hard time finding what I need. I think I need to do some static Nat mappings but am not sure Any ideas would greatly appreciate. Thanks Colin Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72212&t=72192 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Any LANE on CCNP switching [7:72197]
I passed the BCMSN test, but you can look at the Cisco documentation for what should be on the test. If you've taken any courses for the CCNP, or look at the info from Cisco, you will probably see that ATM, and LANE in specific, is a very small percentage of the material covered, if at all. So, if there are any questions on your particular test the percentage of them should be relatively small. You should be able to miss all of them and still pass, assuming that you get 100% on everything else. I sincerely doubt that Cisco would include more than 30% of the questions that are involving LANE... -Fred Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72210&t=72197 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: N+1 redundancy [7:72202]
N+1 means one more than that required. Suppose you have a large switch which can operate half the blade capacity with one power supply and it requires 2 power supplies to operate fully populated. Then, when it is half-populated, dual power supplies provides N+1, because it has one more than the requirement. When fully populated, it has N+1 if it has 3 power supplies in place and available. This is the kind of HA requirement typically demanded by telcos and others for whom off-line is simply not an option. HTH Annlee ""Lo Ching"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dear All, > > What's the meaning of N+1 redundancy? I found a chassis switch with 4 power > supply and it states N+1 power redundancy. > > Thanks. > > rgds, > Lo Ching Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72213&t=72202 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Frame-relay & HSRP [7:72166]
I have seen this problem before with frame. LMI being local to the frame switch means the interface does not go down and backups routes do not kick in. One way to overcome this is to monitor layer 2 by using the “frame-relay end-to-end keepalive mode bidirectional” command within a map class on both sides. This command sends a keepalive every 15 seconds, if 3 are missed the interface will change to down/down even though the interface is receiving LMI from the frame switch. I hope this helps. Mike Masaru Umetsu wrote: > > Dear all > > I have a question about frame-relay. Network Diagram is below. > > R1* * *R3 > | * FR * | > R2* * *R4 > > I configured a HSRP between R1 and R2, R3 and R4. > R1,R3 are Active router.(R2,R4 are Standby router) > And I configured standby track in a Wan side of R1,R3. > > When I disabled(shutdown the interface) the serial0/0 of R1 , > then R2 became Active router. It's ok. > But R3 didn't detect a down of Wan side,so serial0/0 of R3 is > up-up. > Therefore,I can't send a data between R2 and R4. > Regarding Frame-relay configuration, I configured frame-relay in > main-interface. Is it a mechanism of Frame-relay in > main-interface ? > I don't know in detail. Should I use sub-interface & > point-2-point > definition in frame-relay to use HSRP standby track ? Please > explain me > about this problem. > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72214&t=72166 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a default route question.. [7:72211]
Hi, I am sure a lot of you here have read Jeff Doyle's Routing TCP/IP VolumeI. I am reading Charpter 12 "Default routes and on-demand routing" and have a question on page 753, it says that "After a default route is identified in the routing table, RIP, EIGRP, IGRP will automatically advertise it". And it gives an example of RIP automatically advertise defualt route without doing any redistribution. this I can't agree. I tried it on my setup but it doesn't work. Without redistribution, my default route just doesn't get advertised to its RIP neighbors. Am I misunderstanding anything? Can someone who has read this book help? thanks a lot! Ellie Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72211&t=72211 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CID 640-025 - ?? [7:72205]
I don't think that we should divulge any specifics about tests but.you should now that the CCNP-class exams have recently gone through many changes (hence the tons of ccnp-class beta exams).. Cheers, Andre' -Original Message- From: Cisco Nuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 12:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CID 640-025 - ?? [7:72205] Hello,Getting ready to take the 640-025 CID exam. Using Matthew H. Birkner's CID book from Cisco Press. Going over the topics covered in the exam @http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/current _exams/640-025.htmlI noticed that there was NO mention of IPX, AppleTalk, Windows Networking and SNA Design at all? Why?Does this mean that these topics will NOT be tested on the exam even though the book has devoted chapters to these same topics?Please advise.Also, any tips regarding taking this exam is very well appreciated. I mean, are there any scenario type long questions with diagrams etc. asked or is it just like any other regular exam with multiple choice questions - just click a, b, c, d or e ?Thank you.Sincerely. Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. For more information about Barclays Capital, please visit our web site at http://www.barcap.com. Internet communications are not secure and therefore the Barclays Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Although the Barclays Group operates anti-virus programmes, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being passed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Barclays Group. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays Group for operational or business reasons. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72207&t=72205 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE:Security Practical Studies [7:72162]
At 3:44 PM + 7/13/03, Hemingway wrote: >""Jason Viera"" wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> The individuals writing the book probably aren't privy to any exam content >> changes that are around the corner unless they are a part of the CCIE >team, >> another misconception is that Cisco Press is in close contact with >> technology changes that Cisco Systems is actually working on. What many >> people don't understand is that it takes a while to write and publish a >book >> in a cost effective manner, > >I don't know about the back end production part ( final copy, typesetting, >printing, distribution ) 3-6 months, depending on the publisher and priority. Of course, distribution gets variable with the priorities of the booksellers. There may be several months of negotiation before the contract and outline are approved. I've written books in anywhere between 3 and 12 months. > > >One should be reading the command references, reading the config quides, and >concentrating on fundamentals. Any routing protocol over NMBA ( with all >possible combinations for the links ), ISDN backup options, authentication >anyplace it is possible, redistribution between any two porotocols ( with >all possible mechanisms for doing so ). The presence of the 3550's has not >changed any of the fundamentals one needs to master. > >An important Lab skill is finding things on the CD. > >Much as I may or may not like it intellectually, practically speaking, there >is little need to spend time reading RFC's in prep for the lab. I've been >there enough to state categorically that I have seen nothing that made me >wish I spent more time with the RFC's and plenty to make me wish I'd spent >more time with Cisco's docs and with configuring things based on the topics >stated above. I might suggest there's benefit in what I might call reading "beyond" the RFCs, or spending less effort on the protocol specifications and more on the working group mailing list and on the RFCs that introduce extensions to deal with hard problems for the regular protocol. The RIP RFC does have an excellent discussion of split horizon and poison reverse. Harder to read, but there, is a great deal of the underlying principles of redistribution in OSPF. I only really understood BGP after getting the sense of RPSL. RFC1812, the Router Requirements Document, gives lots of answers. Our work on BGP performance, hopefully on its way to getting an RFC number, clarifies ambiguous definitions in 1771 (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-05.txt) Draft 21 (last I looked) of the revised 1771 is far more accurate and informative. > >The CCIE Lab is about configuring Cisco equipment in a manner that satifies >the requirements of Cisco's test. Nothing more. Nothing less. > > > > >> Jason >> ""NKP"" wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > I dont think that the book is all that bad , probably I am an >> > amateur in Security . >> > The thing I still can not understand is why is it that that when >a >> > CCIE Practical Studies book is published by Cisco Press , some of there >> > topics become obsolete in a couple of months or the syllabus changes . A >> > similar thing happened with the Karl Solie book last year for R/S , just >a >> > couple of months after his book was published , they had removed Token >> Ring >> > / IPX from the lab and now they are planning to add IDS and VPN >> Concentrator >> > in the lab , the details of which are not mentioned in this book . >> > >> > >> > Navin Parwal >> > >> > >> > ""Roberts, Larry"" wrote in message >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > Just looking to get others opinions on this book. I'm just now to the >> OSPF >> > > chapter, and I have already found several pages worth of mistakes. >> > > >> > > I have an e-mail into ciscopress with a listing of the errors, and I >> > > understand that any first edition will have some, but I'm finding > > critical >> > > mistakes as well as configuration errors that should be obvious, yet >> > somehow >> > > they were overlooked. >> > > >> > > Was the original CCIE:practical studies full of errors as well? >> > > >> > > Maybe I'm expecting to much, but I find myself questioning everything >> that >> > > the authors have written because of the mistakes I have found. >> > > >> > > Not what I was expecting from a CCIE Level book. >> > > >> > > Not trying to slam the authors, just trying to get others opinions... >> > > >> > > Thanks >> > > >> > > Larry Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72208&t=72162 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE:Security Practical Studies [7:72162]
""Jason Viera"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > The individuals writing the book probably aren't privy to any exam content > changes that are around the corner unless they are a part of the CCIE team, > another misconception is that Cisco Press is in close contact with > technology changes that Cisco Systems is actually working on. What many > people don't understand is that it takes a while to write and publish a book > in a cost effective manner, I don't know about the back end production part ( final copy, typesetting, printing, distribution ) but the writing and tech review part might take as long as a year. Shorten that time frame, and only obvious mistakes get caught, and maybe not even then. The writer and the tech reviewer each probably have real jobs. They are working evenings and weekends.Blurry eyes don't always catch everything. :-> > so if any exam content or new technology is > released during the process the changes probably won't be reflected. Nothing > is perfect, you should never rely on one source being the definitive > resource for your studies. Reading the configuration guides and command > references can prove to be quite beneficial. IMHO JMHO as well. One should not be endlessly searching for The Perfect Practice Lab, one which is "real close" to the real lab. Cisco is changing the real lab scenarios pretty quickly these days. I don't think a particular scenario lasts more than a couple of months any more. One should be reading the command references, reading the config quides, and concentrating on fundamentals. Any routing protocol over NMBA ( with all possible combinations for the links ), ISDN backup options, authentication anyplace it is possible, redistribution between any two porotocols ( with all possible mechanisms for doing so ). The presence of the 3550's has not changed any of the fundamentals one needs to master. An important Lab skill is finding things on the CD. Much as I may or may not like it intellectually, practically speaking, there is little need to spend time reading RFC's in prep for the lab. I've been there enough to state categorically that I have seen nothing that made me wish I spent more time with the RFC's and plenty to make me wish I'd spent more time with Cisco's docs and with configuring things based on the topics stated above. The CCIE Lab is about configuring Cisco equipment in a manner that satifies the requirements of Cisco's test. Nothing more. Nothing less. > Jason > ""NKP"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I dont think that the book is all that bad , probably I am an > > amateur in Security . > > The thing I still can not understand is why is it that that when a > > CCIE Practical Studies book is published by Cisco Press , some of there > > topics become obsolete in a couple of months or the syllabus changes . A > > similar thing happened with the Karl Solie book last year for R/S , just a > > couple of months after his book was published , they had removed Token > Ring > > / IPX from the lab and now they are planning to add IDS and VPN > Concentrator > > in the lab , the details of which are not mentioned in this book . > > > > > > Navin Parwal > > > > > > ""Roberts, Larry"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Just looking to get others opinions on this book. I'm just now to the > OSPF > > > chapter, and I have already found several pages worth of mistakes. > > > > > > I have an e-mail into ciscopress with a listing of the errors, and I > > > understand that any first edition will have some, but I'm finding > critical > > > mistakes as well as configuration errors that should be obvious, yet > > somehow > > > they were overlooked. > > > > > > Was the original CCIE:practical studies full of errors as well? > > > > > > Maybe I'm expecting to much, but I find myself questioning everything > that > > > the authors have written because of the mistakes I have found. > > > > > > Not what I was expecting from a CCIE Level book. > > > > > > Not trying to slam the authors, just trying to get others opinions... > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Larry Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72203&t=72162 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CID 640-025 - ?? [7:72205]
Hello,Getting ready to take the 640-025 CID exam. Using Matthew H. Birkner's CID book from Cisco Press. Going over the topics covered in the exam @http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/current_exams/640-025.htmlI noticed that there was NO mention of IPX, AppleTalk, Windows Networking and SNA Design at all? Why?Does this mean that these topics will NOT be tested on the exam even though the book has devoted chapters to these same topics?Please advise.Also, any tips regarding taking this exam is very well appreciated. I mean, are there any scenario type long questions with diagrams etc. asked or is it just like any other regular exam with multiple choice questions - just click a, b, c, d or e ?Thank you.Sincerely. Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72205&t=72205 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Any LANE on CCNP switching [7:72197]
""Tiongster 84"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi guys, > > I just want to make sure is there any LANE on CCNP switching? I don't know, but what does the blueprint say? http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/current_exams/640-604.html#examtop watch the wrap > > Thank you! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72204&t=72197 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
N+1 redundancy [7:72202]
Dear All, What's the meaning of N+1 redundancy? I found a chassis switch with 4 power supply and it states N+1 power redundancy. Thanks. rgds, Lo Ching Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72202&t=72202 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Any LANE on CCNP switching [7:72197]
Hello, For these types of questions, it's alwaysbest to refer to the cisco.com site... Best regards, Andre' -Original Message- From: Tiongster 84 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Any LANE on CCNP switching [7:72197] Hi guys, I just want to make sure is there any LANE on CCNP switching? Thank you! For more information about Barclays Capital, please visit our web site at http://www.barcap.com. Internet communications are not secure and therefore the Barclays Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Although the Barclays Group operates anti-virus programmes, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being passed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Barclays Group. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays Group for operational or business reasons. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72201&t=72197 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dcd=up [7:72175]
DCD is the Carrier Detect Like the CD led on a PSTN line modem. -Nakul ""fdfdfdfd fdfdfdf"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Router# show interfaces serial1 > Serial1 is up, line protocol is up > Hardware is HD64570 > Internet address is 190.1.2.1/24 > MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1544 Kbit, DLY 2 usec, > Reliability 255/255, txload 237/255, rxload 1/255 > Encapsulation HDLC, loopback not set > Keepalive not set > Last input 00:00:22, output 00:00:00, output hang never > Last clearing of "show interface" counters 00:17:58 > Input queue: 0/75/0 (size/max/drops); Total output drops: 2479 > > Queueing strategy: random early detection(RED) > flows (active/max active/max): 8/9/16 > mean queue depth: 27 > drops: class random tail min-th max-th mark-prob > 0 946 0 20 40 1/10 > 1 488 0 22 40 1/10 > 2 429 0 24 40 1/10 > 3 341 0 26 40 1/10 > 4 235 0 28 40 1/10 > 5 40 0 31 40 1/10 > 6 0 0 33 40 1/10 > 7 0 0 35 40 1/10 > rsvp 0 0 37 40 1/10 > 30 second input rate 1000 bits/sec, 2 packets/sec > 30 second output rate 119000 bits/sec, 126 packets/sec > 1346 packets input, 83808 bytes, 0 no buffer > Received 12 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles > 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort > 84543 packets output, 9977642 bytes, 0 underruns > 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 6 interface resets > 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out > 0 carrier transitions > DCD=up DSR=up DTR=up RTS=up CTS=up > > > what is the meaning of "dcd=up"? > thanks. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72199&t=72175 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: spanning trees over the same trunk port [7:72174]
like everyone else said, by causing lots of traffic. However, I think, the amount of traffic generated in such a case would probably cause something akin to a broadcast storm. Correct me if im wrong. Anyone have an opinion on this??? -Nakul ""fdfdfdfd fdfdfdf"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > how loops in one spanning tree affect other spanning trees? > thanks. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72200&t=72174 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE:Security Practical Studies [7:72162]
The individuals writing the book probably aren't privy to any exam content changes that are around the corner unless they are a part of the CCIE team, another misconception is that Cisco Press is in close contact with technology changes that Cisco Systems is actually working on. What many people don't understand is that it takes a while to write and publish a book in a cost effective manner, so if any exam content or new technology is released during the process the changes probably won't be reflected. Nothing is perfect, you should never rely on one source being the definitive resource for your studies. Reading the configuration guides and command references can prove to be quite beneficial. IMHO Jason ""NKP"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I dont think that the book is all that bad , probably I am an > amateur in Security . > The thing I still can not understand is why is it that that when a > CCIE Practical Studies book is published by Cisco Press , some of there > topics become obsolete in a couple of months or the syllabus changes . A > similar thing happened with the Karl Solie book last year for R/S , just a > couple of months after his book was published , they had removed Token Ring > / IPX from the lab and now they are planning to add IDS and VPN Concentrator > in the lab , the details of which are not mentioned in this book . > > > Navin Parwal > > > ""Roberts, Larry"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Just looking to get others opinions on this book. I'm just now to the OSPF > > chapter, and I have already found several pages worth of mistakes. > > > > I have an e-mail into ciscopress with a listing of the errors, and I > > understand that any first edition will have some, but I'm finding critical > > mistakes as well as configuration errors that should be obvious, yet > somehow > > they were overlooked. > > > > Was the original CCIE:practical studies full of errors as well? > > > > Maybe I'm expecting to much, but I find myself questioning everything that > > the authors have written because of the mistakes I have found. > > > > Not what I was expecting from a CCIE Level book. > > > > Not trying to slam the authors, just trying to get others opinions... > > > > Thanks > > > > Larry Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72198&t=72162 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
