Re: Netware 4 server

[Brant I. Stevens]

Encapsulation Difference, A.

KOLIY wrote:

> I have a netware 4 server and a cisco router just be installed on
> the Ethernet. The router can't see the server
> a.encapsulation difference
> b.router address must be configured on the server
> c.server need to be the default gateway
> d.rebbot the router
>
> Thanks
>
> 
> Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
>
> _
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: trunking

[Brant I. Stevens]

This may seem like nit-picking, but it isn't actually a revision of
802.1Q that supports
PVST, but rather, the vendor gear that supports PVST with the use of
802.1Q...  Nortel
Passport (Accelar) switches support this as well...

-Brant

Rik wrote:

> Actually, most newer revisions of Dot1Q support PVST as well.
>
> Rik
>
> ""ciscosis"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 001301c0b3b7$aba8b000$593d839b@nes2s50667">news:001301c0b3b7$aba8b000$593d839b@nes2s50667...
> > ISL has a number of advantages over dot1q,  for example it supports per
> vlan
> > spanning tree (PVST) which allows a separate spantree instance per Vlan
> > which makes networks more scalable and more stable than dot1q based.
> >
> > It is Cisco proprietary but it interoperates with dot1q (common spanning
> > tree) compliant switches (using Cisco protocol PVST+)
> >
> >  If you are building a large cisco switched network with alot of Vlans and
> > are worried about issues such as spanning tree convergence/ stability
> > /reliability .. definately go for  ISL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> _
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: IBGP neighbors

[Brant I. Stevens]

Exactly...  Route Reflectors negate the need for a full iBGP mesh...

"Pickard, Richard" wrote:

> 3/28/2001   12:55pm  Wednesday
> =20
> Would anyone care to elaborate on IBGP neighbors?
> Must they always be fully meshed or do route reflectors negate this?
> =20
> =20
> Richard L. Pickard
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (312) 560-6482
> =20
>
> _
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: default route considerations

[Brant I. Stevens]

One thing to watch is trhat some routing protocols do not undertand the 0/0 route, like
IGRP...   In cases such as these, you will need to make use of the default network
command to provide default-route functionality...


"Pickard, Richard" wrote:

> 3/28/2001   3:13pm  Wednesday
> =20
> I recently came across the following on a practice test:
> =20
> A default route of  0.0.0.0  may be used, but what is the most important
> consideration?
> No info was given about a routing protocol.
> Can anyone point me in the right direction on where to go with this?
> =20
> Richard L. Pickard
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (312) 560-6482
> =20
>
> _
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: designing subnets with all ones/zeros.. [7:695]

[Brant I. Stevens]

EIGRP has no class either...  :)

David Chandler wrote:

> Chuck
>
> Thanks for the proof read  :>
>
> Bellow is the cisco page & part of the doc relating to zero subnets.
> To me it reads "don't; because we say so"
>
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/ip_c/ipcprt1/1cdipadr.htm#xtocid105602
>
> ---
> Enabling Use of Subnet Zero
>
> Subnetting with a subnet address of zero is illegal and strongly
discouraged
> (as
> stated in RFC 791) because of the confusion that can arise between a
network
> and
> a
> subnet that have the same addresses. For example, if network 131.108.0.0 is
> subnetted as 255.255.255.0, subnet zero would be written as
> 131.108.0.0which is
>
> identical to the network address.
>
> You can use the all zeros and all ones subnet (131.108.255.0), even though
> it is
> discouraged. Configuring interfaces for the all ones subnet is explicitly
> allowed.
> However, if you need the entire subnet space for your IP address, use the
> following command in global configuration mode to enable subnet zero:
> ---
>
> You mentioned that Windows is not rfc1812 compiant and that it allows wacky
> subnets and disallows some valid subnets.  Was that trial & error or has
> microsoft documented this? I hate spending an hour looking for a document
> that
> is not there...
>
> Thanks
>
> DaveC
>
> Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>
> > Comments within:
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> > David Chandler
> > Sent:   Saturday, April 14, 2001 11:25 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject:designing subnets with all ones/zeros.. [7:695]
> >
> > I have two questions regarding using the all ones and/or the all zeros
> > subnet.
> >
> > Recently one of my co-workers started studying for CCNA and while
> > reviewing subnets he kept telling me that you could not use the all zero
> > or all ones subnet.
> >
> > CL:  classically speaking this is true. Early implementations, etc. these
> > days this is no longer the case
> >
> > The Win95, NT, and LINUX hosts didn't have a
> > problem with it nor did the routers.
> >
> > CL: a long time ago on this list we had a discussion of wacky subnet
masks.
> > In the course of researching this, I found that the windows IP stack was
> not
> > rfc 1812 compliant in that it allowed discontiguous / wacky / non
> contiguous
> > ones subnet masks, and that windows also categorically denied use of
> certain
> > legitimate ip addresses. Such as 172.16.1.255/16  I believe that this is
> > corrected in Win2K
> >
> >  I tested it with RIP & EIGRP.
> > (skipped OSPF since it is classful).
> >
> > CL: I believe you meant to say "classless" ;->
> >
> > I found that Cisco and others vendors agree that it will work, but they
> > "Strongly discourage using the all ones or all zeros subnets"
> >
> > CL: where did you find language about "strongly discourage"?
> >
> > PS: if some of you try testing this; note that prior to 12.1 you'll need
> > to enter
> > (config)# ip zero-subnet
> > before the router will accept a zero subnet on a interface. Starting in
> > 12.1 the zero subnet is enabled by default.
> >
> > CL: ip subnet-zero
> >
> > Question #1: What type problems could you run into by using a all
> > ones/zero subnet.
> >
> > CL: issues with older equipment / obsolete equipment / old OS versions
> >
> > Question #2: For you folks that are in design; Do you follow or
> > ignore the "DO NOT USE ALL ONES/ZEROS" rule?
> >
> > CL: use both all the time. Of course I sell new Cisco equipment, so there
> is
> > no issue with most customers. Or I sell EIGRP or OSPF designs. Same
thing.
> > ;->
> >
> > I'm trying to get a real world idea of what the standard practice is.
> > I work at a large corp, so I haven't a clue what sane people do.
> >
> > CL: so do I and neither do I.
> >
> > DaveC
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name
of bistevens.vcf]




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=731&t=695
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CCIE written and BOSON tests [7:2840]

[Brant I. Stevens]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Amen.

Personally, I found the tests INVALUABLE in passing the CCIE written
on the first go-round.  I only hope that I can repeat that
performance for the lab in September...  :)

- -Brant

- - Original Message - 
From: "scott mann" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:39 PM
Subject: CCIE written and BOSON tests [7:2840]


> Pre-CCIE written folks,
> 
> Instead of continually responing to the same question, I will
> answer it  here:
> 
> I passed the CCIE written by using ALL 3 of the BOSON tests. I
> cannot really  say which test had more questions in relation to the
> actual exam, but  suffice it to say that instead of asking me which
> one of the three is the  best, you should plunk down the measly $90
> and buy all three. Isn't the  point of this to gain knowledge and
> become excellent at what you do through  that knowledge? Spend time
> going through all 600+ questions(some are  repetitive) and learn
> not only the answers, but the why; use the referenced  links to
> Cisco's website and/or Caslow book. You can never study too much 
> material as long as it's relevant to your future success. Right?
> 
> Oh, and don't take this to mean that the BOSON's will be enough to
> pass  alone, you need some good fundamentals in networking and a
> couple of the  better books out there. I suggest the new CCIE
> TCP/IP volume II book by  Cisco Press, and Volume II caslow book.
> Read and remember!
> 
> Good Luck
> 
> Scott
> _
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and
> Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use 

iQA/AwUBOvAibv8m30XxCss3EQIoZgCfQ98GcTGMCKg0t+DeLH66L0uBFqYAoJkZ
1Za+fEEhNp4KiTwGFotSaLqE
=y8TB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=2923&t=2840
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Catalyst Gurus [7:8177]

[Brant I. Stevens]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I don't know if this was said, and I apologize if it's a duplicate,
but but I'll say it anyway...

Depending on the version of CatOS you are using, (anything above
5.4x) will include a macro command called set port host.  This
command will automatically turn off the trunking and ether-channeling
(is that a word? :)), and in addition, will automatically set the
port into portfast mode.

- -Brant.
- - Original Message - 
From: "Ethan Haslett" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Catalyst Gurus [7:8177]


> As others have said, check to see if portfast is enabled.  But also
> check to see if
> trunk autonegotiation is enabled and if Etherchannel/Port
> Aggregation Protocol is
> enabled.  These two will typically consume about 18 seconds to
> negotiate and figure
> out that your Fluke (or other device) isn't trunking and isn't
> channelling.  
> 
> Commands:
> show trunk [m/n](look at mode, usually defaults to auto, you
> may want it off)
> show port channel m/n   (look at mode, usually defaults to auto
> silent, you may want it off)
> set trunk m/n off   (turns trunking off completely on this port, no
> negotiation)
> set port channel m/n mode off   (turns channelling off completely
> on this port, no negotiation)
> 
> Ethan
> 
> ""Larry Ogun-Banjo""  wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > We have just installed some new catalyst switches 650x and 69xx.
> > I have noticed
> > that whenever I connected with a fluke to test connectivity on
> > the ports, 
> it
> > takes approximately 20 secs to get its first contact with another
> > device. 
> I'm
> > aware the switch port needs to learn the mac address etc but I
> > would not 
> have
> > thought it would take so long. Are there any commands that would
> > speedup 
> the
> > network discovery or is this normal behaviour on a new port?
> > Pardon this trivial question but it would help.
> Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use 

iQA/AwUBOyd95P8m30XxCss3EQKdQgCgvnJIfRe5YEwD5OLn7/V+5+inQ30AoOfK
ZIMnTDI+9LwLaZoGY12lISfS
=/gVa
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8344&t=8177
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]