Re: What is the difference between flooded broadcast and direct [7:479]
Some additional notes: A directed broadcast to all hosts on a particular distant subnet/network is in current IOS version implicitly not allowed (no ip directed-broadcast) although generally this type of broadcast in processed by router without any problem (correctly as per its routing table). "Flooded broadcast" is usually called "local broadcast" as it is primarily aimed at a local segment, all hosts (e.g. for RARP, BOOTP, purposes). It is implicitly never passed through an attached router (hence you need an ip helper-address if you need a router to forward such a datagram). Rita Reinhold Fischer wrote: > > a directed broadcast comes from outside of the subnet and is directed to > the broadcast address of the subnet. this can be abused to do bad things > with it. just imagine sending a packet with a spoofed source address to > the broadcast address of a subnet. all the hosts that react on the packet > will respond to the address that never sent the packet ... > > the flooded broadcast (never heard it as flooded) is probably the standard > broadcast that is generated inside the subnet and goes to all hosts in the > subnet. > > Greetings > > Reinhold > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, DZ wrote: > > > What is the difference between flooded broadcast and direct broadcast? > > Anyone knows? Thanks in advance. > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=479&t=479 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Off-topic: On-line course in TCP/IP [7:480]
Hi all, The discussion on this group concerning learning resources is mostly about self-study (books and other vast - not only Cisco - resources, including the group postings), or instructor-led courses provided by Cisco Training/Learning partners. I wonder whether someone has ever taken an on-line (web-based, asynchronous) course in IT (even not specifically by Cisco or Cisco-oriented) and what the experience has been. I would appreciate your input (off-mailing list due to the off-topic nature), as I am myself exploring the on-line education possibilities and will run a 12-week course on TCP/IP through UCLA, starting shortly. For those interested in more info use the following link (TCP/IP Specialist): http://www.onlineLearning.net/CourseCatalog/CourseDetail.cfm?s=527.5080w012n.034z215s30&CID=1001380240 Rita Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=480&t=480 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off-topic: On-line course in TCP/IP [7:480]
Thank you Howard - for support and valid points. In the meantime I have received quite a few (different) opinions on on-line training based on personal experiences which I value. Anyone else wishing to comment - please do off-line (well, directly to my address - each view requires a peer-to-peer discussion). Thanks for comprehension, Rita "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > > >Hey good advertisement. > > Let me make a comment here. I know Rita, and I regarded this as a > legitimate request for information. There's a delicate line, I will > admit, about information and advertisement. I don't think there was > anything wrong with my posting a response to some reviews of my book, > and adding some perspective. > > >Personally don't think you can learn anything new on-line. > > For some people, it may be the only option, even at the beginning. > They may be in isolated locations, can't go to regular classes, etc. > Classroom training is probably best for many people, although I tend > not to learn well as a student in a formal class (I teach them well > and learn when I teach) > > >On-line learning is good for people finishing degrees not for entry level. > > Or in staying abreast of technology in general. Most of the real > work of the IETF is done via mailing lists. > > >Is this part of a degree program. > >Don > > > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Dr Rita Puzmanova" > >To: > >Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:47 AM > >Subject: Off-topic: On-line course in TCP/IP [7:480] > > > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> The discussion on this group concerning learning resources is mostly > >> about self-study (books and other vast - not only Cisco - resources, > >> including the group postings), or instructor-led courses provided by > >> Cisco Training/Learning partners. > >> > >> I wonder whether someone has ever taken an on-line (web-based, > >> asynchronous) course in IT (even not specifically by Cisco or > >> Cisco-oriented) and what the experience has been. > >> > >> I would appreciate your input (off-mailing list due to the off-topic > >> nature), as I am myself exploring the on-line education possibilities > >> and will run a 12-week course on TCP/IP through UCLA, starting shortly. > >> For those interested in more info use the following link (TCP/IP > >> Specialist): > >> > >> > >http://www.onlineLearning.net/CourseCatalog/CourseDetail.cfm?s=527.5080w012n > >.034z215s30&CID=1001380240 > >> > >> Rita > >> 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] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=498&t=480 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LLC Type 2 [7:8262]
This is quite interesting discussion going back into the roots of the current networking (which is in many ways quite a useful exercise, yet not performed often enough). I wish my father who was quite active in these network-forming days could add his knowledgeable views here - unfortunately, it is no more possible. At least I can add some notes from his publications to (hopefully) enhance the discussion below: "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > ITU-T didn't exist yet. CCITT was the ancestor, and its first X.25 > standards were in the 1972 books (I forget the color now--probably > yellow or orange). CCITT was converted to ITU-T in 1993 (March). Recommendations (they have never used standard for their approved deliverables) before 1993, valid ones, are still referred as CCITT. The newer ones have the ITU-T denomination. For information (using my father's notes) the CCITT books-of-recommendations' colors were the following: - green in 1972, - yellow in 1980, - red in 1984 - blue in 1988 (last 4-year-book). Currently they (ITU-T) may still refer to individual recommendations as "white books" (which for us locally has very different connotation: "To join or not to join the EU" ;-) > That used LAP. The first commercial X.25 > networks deployed in 1972, the first a banking network in Spain and > then Telenet a few months afterward. > > LAP-B was in the X.25 1976 standards. At that time X.25 was not in compliance with then worked on OSI model. But it changed a lot over time, in 1984 X.25 was a source for ISO 8208 and nowadays it complies fully with bottom OSI reference model. > > LLC 3 was developed by the MAP project, primarily General Motors, and > I don't think it ever became a full IEEE specification. It certainly > isn't in my copy of 802.2. > This is interesting, because there are approved IEEE (and endorsed ISO/IEC) stnds on management objects and PICS proforma for Type 3. I will check the latest 802.2 version once I use up the new wave in IEEE allowing us to download all the 802 standards. BTW looking through the IEEE standards status report, I have come across even another LLC Type - Type 4 (1991): "Supplement to 802.2, Information Processing Systems - Local Area Networks: Logical Link Control (LLC) Type 4 High Speed, High Performance Operation " But status sweeps my expectations away: "Status: Withdrawn PAR. Standards project no longer endorsed by the IEEE. " Rita Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8325&t=8262 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Payload length in IPv6 datagram [7:8336]
Hi all, I would appreciate your insight in the following question I have received from my student. My answer follows but I am not sure I have not missed some important piece here. Q: Why was the meaning of the packet length parameter changed from total length to payload length when moving from IPv4 to IPv6? It looks to me like deliberately created fuel for confusion. My Answer: IPv4 header might vary between 20 to 60 octets, and in first 20 octets there are 11 fields which need to be looked at and possibly processed by routers along the path traversing internet. This unnecessary complexity leads to inefficient router's performance. By employing a simple header of fixed length with 8 mandatory fields, IPv6 routers enhance their performance. As we could see, many fields were either removed or embedded in the extension headers in IPv6. As the IPv6 header has a fixed length of 40 octets, the Header length field could be eliminated. Payload length is the length of the remainder of the IPv6 packet following the header, in octets (extension headers plus the transport-level PDU). IPv6 as opposed to IPv4 does not perform any checksum in the base header, again to allow for faster processing at intermediate nodes (routers). The routers only check what is needed to check: in case of IPv6 they are interested that the complete header is there (they know what length to expect - fixed 40 octets) and that the rest of the datagram is complete in terms of advertized length. Therefore instead of identifying the whole datagram length from which they would substract the 40 octets, they know immediately what the payload length is. This seems quite sensible; perhaps we could attribute this sort of discrepancy between versions rather to the IPv4 way of specifying the whole datagram length instead of the data (payload) length. IPv6 moved away from that for practical reasons - routers' efficiency. Rita Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8336&t=8336 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ARP and TCP/IP layering [7:8335]
Hi all, Trivial yet fundamental question. I have seen ARP described as part of the network (internet) layer so many times that I have started to believe it belongs there (although I know well that it operates "as if" the Layer 2 protocol - as per OSI RM). Now I have eventually come across Doug Comer's statement: "It's part of the network interface layer." I should not ask where the truth is but still I will. That would mean quite a lot of books are incorrect in this (including Cisco materials). Rita Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8335&t=8335 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ARP and TCP/IP layering [7:8335]
Thank you all for valid perspectives. Yet my original question (I had on mind but perhaps not clearly worded) is still unanswered. I will rephrase it: Does ARP operates at network interface layer or internet layer of TCP/IP protocol stack? Just forget anything else (in particular OSI concepts) - concentrate on TCP/IP. To my opinion every protocol must belong somewhere (otherwise the whole layering concept would be useless and could not work), it cannot be an "interface" (it is a layer protocol, not an interlayer protocol within a single system). No matter whether IETF currently bothers about its own layering system - at the beginning they for sure managed to fit the pieces in the puzzle (I mean protocols) according to their original, simple 4-layer-architecture. Sorry for being s persistent ;-) Rita Dr Rita Puzmanova wrote: > > Hi all, > > Trivial yet fundamental question. I have seen ARP described as part of > the network (internet) layer so many times that I have started to > believe it belongs there (although I know well that it operates "as if" > the Layer 2 protocol - as per OSI RM). Now I have eventually come across > Doug Comer's statement: "It's part of the network interface layer." > > I should not ask where the truth is but still I will. That would mean > quite a lot of books are incorrect in this (including Cisco materials). > > Rita Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8605&t=8335 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ARP and TCP/IP layering [7:8335]
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > > The topic that will never die... :-) Right because I am getting more and more confused by the thread I (inadvertently) started ;-( The more I wanted to get away from OSI reference model, the closer we got. I thought we could do without (anyway TCP/IP is older than the '84 endorsed OSI model standard) and could concentrate on TCP/IP layering concepts. Not that I do not like OSI, the contrary. On one side this shows the usefulness of (and reason why we all need to learn and understand properly) OSI RM. So now I am confused on both fronts: "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > > Again, we are getting into a situation where there is a desire to > coerce things into a simplified version of the OSI model. Real OSI > documents are very careful about the protocol versus service > definition, and indeed you will find separate documents, say, for the > transport service and the (several) transport services. Doing things > this way completely sidesteps the "what layer is this" problem. > I always thought the the layer is defined by its service(s) provided to its upper layer. These services are reflected in the functions needed to be performed within the layer. And protocols residing (operating) at the layer should "fulfill" the function(s). Overall, where the number of protocols operate at a certain layer, they altogether should cover all the functions at the layer (with some potential "redundancy" - where alternative protocols exist, well, not quite, the alternative protocols actually seem to perform subset or superset of layer functions - like UDP or TCP, or TP0-TP4 of OSI architecture). What is wrong in my understanding (and need to see the structure) which somehow tortures me to fit ARP a protocol in a particular layer of the protocol architecture it was developed for? Rita P.S. Sorry for those feeling this discussion redundant. My horoscope for today says it all: "You may not be the star performer at the moment, but there's great delight in playing second fiddle. Without your part, the arrangement would sound empty. Small contributions yield big rewards. " ?-) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8695&t=8335 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LLC Type 2 [7:8262]
Final results of some search: > >For information (using my father's notes) the CCITT > >books-of-recommendations' colors were the following: > >- green in 1972, > >- yellow in 1980, > >- red in 1984 > >- blue in 1988 (last 4-year-book). > > mutters because I distinctly remember an Orange Book. 1976? I have missed 1976 - cannot find it in notes and ITU-T site does not help either. Let's make it orange??? (Actually none of the recs from that book are valid any more, as opposed to recs from Blue, Red and Yellow books - which proves Orange simply must be older.) > > You are quite correct that there was evolution, including in the OSI > Reference Model itself. Especially important (don't have numbers in > front of me) were the Internal Organization of the Network Layer and > the OSI Routeing Framework. Once one understands these > specifications, many of the arguments over "what layer does XXX go > into" disappear, because the definitions of layers have evolved. > Look at ISO 8880 and 8881, CONS over Ethernet and CLNP over X.25. > Is the referred document a technical report?: ISO/IEC TR 9575:1995 Information technology -- Telecommunications and information exchange between systems -- OSI Routeing Framework > > > > > > >> LLC 3 My 802.2 document is the original > IEEE hard cover specification. There's no question there were MIBs > for MAP/Enhanced Performance Architecture/etc.; I worked on > conformance testers for them, especially their management. I will > observe that most of these MIBs were not written as IETF-style SMI, > but OSI GDMO. > I have downloaded the latest ANSI/IEEE Std 802.2, 1998 Edition - and Type 3 is indeed specified there. Rita Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8638&t=8262 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding RFC bis [7:11685]
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > > >Has anyone ever noticed that certain RFCs have a bis version ? > > > >ie RFC 2547bis. Anyone know what that means ? > > "bis" is Latin, IIRC, for "second", and "ter" is third. > > Bis and ter are actually used in ITU/CCITT documents for revisions. My understanding is that bis, ter...etc. is rather used for indicating alternative solutions, in this case recommendations where each is (may be) valid and in force, yet different. CCITT/ITU-T uses Amendments, Addenda and Corrigenda for different types of revisions of recommendations in force. > The IETF only uses them informally: 2547bis is a name for the > working draft of the next revision to RFC2547. When that draft > becomes an RFC, it will get a new number. > I have never come across RFCbis, interesting news! Rita Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11820&t=11685 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: About Frame Relay [7:29383]
See also Frame Relay Forum for basic guide, tutorials, primers and specs (Implementation Agreements). http://www.frforum.com Very briefly: Frame Relay architecture encompasses only the lowest two layers hence the _frame relay_ - at link layer. The bottom two layers are just enough (even more than that) for a fast transport WAN service over quite reliable physical links. Rita Anthony Toh wrote: > > Does anyone know any websites that have good & simple > introduction/explaination on Frame Relay network ? Pls direct me. > > What does it mean by "Frame Relay is a layer 2 protocol (Data link layer)" > and "Frame Relay works on the layer 2 of the OSI model" ? > > Appreciate for any enlightenment. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29403&t=29383 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IP Packet options [7:31364]
The best source is the IPv4 standard RFC 791: "The Options provide for control functions needed or useful in some situations but unnecessary for the most common communications. The options include provisions for timestamps, security, and special routingThe options may appear or not in datagrams...The option field is variable in length." The following options exist (from my own TCP/IP course): + o the security if the data field is encrypted, o the source routing (loose or strict) where the actual route followed by the datagram may be specified as a list of router addresses, o the route recording, where the addresses of the visited routers are recorded during the transit of the datagram through the internet path, o the time recording (timestamp) used by the visited routers to register the current time in the processed datagram. ++ For more details, codes etc. go to the RFC. As options are extremely rarely used I wonder whether some filtering upon them would be available on routers? Rita Aamer Kaleem wrote: > > Can anyone shed some light on "Options" in the IP Packet. On CCO, it is said > that they can used for security etc. Also how can we filter packets based on > "option types". > > Thanx, > > Aamer kaleem Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=31388&t=31364 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Impressions - CCIE Practical Studies [7:32237]
I must join the discussion and add some of my most recent experience here with Addison Wesley ;-) They used their external reviewer and I must say they chose him very well. I am sure I would not be able to do such a thorough review he did. Of course, I had quite a few peer (voluntary) reviewers which concentrated on their relevant parts only. However, these were the superb technical experts but without much writing experience. (Contrary to Howard, I think the good technical reviewer/editor should already have some books published to realize both that writing is hard work and that getting this work thoroughly reviewed is crucial). As for editors that is another story: I had one who did all the editing in one go. Not very funny thing was that although I supplied him immediately with replies to his queries after every set of pages he did, he did not look at them until after he reached almost the end of book! Which, as you may easily imagine, meant that he made consistent changes where they were not necessary or plain wrong. One mistake I will never do again is to rely that the editor will make any formatting consistent throughout the text. No, you have to do it despite of the fact that the final product will use something very different to what you suggested, but close to wished consistency, at least. But all technical and editing comments you get in the process are piece of cake compared to proofreading of your own text (!) having gone through the complex publishing house mill ... at the time you would really like to relax, eventually. Rita "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > > >Some publishers (including Cisco Press) have authors work with a > >development editor during the writing of the book. This is especially > >important for new writers or engineers who don't have very good writing > >skills. Cisco Press also has the writer work with technical reviewers as > >the writing is progressing. > > Macmillan Technical Publishing, sister organization of Cisco Press, > also uses development editors. In my case, it was an awful > experience. The development editor constantly tried to rephrase > things in a manner that changed meaning, even when the reviewers told > her I was correct. > > I believe Cisco Press now has the option of working with, or not > working with, a development editor. > > If the relationship can develop over time, it can also work out that > authors with similar writing styles can trade reviews. I've done this > with Galina Pildush and Jeff Doyle, variously at the chapter and book > level. > > For people interested in eventually writing books, contacting the > publishers and getting on the list of reviewers can be an excellent > introduction to the process. > > > > >I realize I was critical of Cisco Press copy editing in my previous > >message, but, in general, their books are much better than the competition > >because they work in this mode (with development editors and technical > >reviewers). > > > >Some publishers, such as Wiley, won't let an author in the door unless the > >author has proven writing skills and technical expertise. That method works > >also. > > Wiley uses fewer technical reviewers than Macmillan, but they aren't > the same kind of configuration-oriented books. The reviewer (an > "advisor" when a Networking Council member) is more of a sounding > board. Scott Bradner did this for my first Wiley book. For my > second, Lyman Chapin started out as advisor but changed jobs and was > unable to continue. Annlee Hines took over and was a tremendous help. > > I hadn't realized the proved writing, but I've been extremely happy > working with Wiley. Since I'm going through copy edit on the new book > (to ship in early April), I have to share something that had me in > hysterics. > > In the book, I have a number of "running case studies." One is about > a law firm, which I named "Huffle, Puffle, and Cetera." The copy > editor carefully changed every reference to "Huffle, Puffle, etc." > The managing editor giggled and put it back. > > > > >And then there are the publishers that just want to push content out there > >and start collecting s as quickly as possible. Their stuff tends to > >suck. ;-) > > > >Priscilla > > > >At 04:02 PM 1/17/02, Chuck Larrieu wrote: > >>It may also be that copy editors think that because it is tech, that what > >>they see, although it does not make sense grammatically, does make sense to > >>other techies. For a tech review I am currently working on, I had to > >>specifically call the editor and tell him that the chapters were very > poorly > >>written, had lots of poor sentence construction, not to mention bad > grammar, > >>and that he should specifically be aware that the text made no sense no > >>matter who was reading it. Hmmm... come to think of it, I haven't heard > from > >>those people lately. I wonder if they fired me? ;-> > >> > >>I suspect that in this mad rush to get tech books out the door, many of the > >>publishing
Deepest sympathy from Europe [7:19463]
...hope you are all OK there... Damn the terrorists :-((( Rita Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=19463&t=19463 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which layer do the ospf bgp rip work on [7:20953]
Keeping myself - hopefully - unbiased in this spelling discussion (not being native English speaker) I would like to point out - FYI - that FIBRE CHANNEL is the ANSI standard?! Rita MADMAN wrote: > > Ah yes I should have known it was a British spelling, like centre, > fibre, behaviour etc... When they gonna learn some good English ;) > > Dave > > "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > > > > >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > > > > > > Geez, thanks, to think I have misspelled routing, err routeing for > > >sooo long and had never been corrected :) > > > > It's ISO's idea of correct spelling. The British got there first. > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > >> From the perspective of someone that actively worked on the ISO > > >> routeing architecture (and yes, that's the correct spelling), I'm not > > >> sure what purpose conversation serves. The management annex to the > > >> ISO reference model (I think it's ISO 7498-4) defines system > > >> management protocols (e.g., SNMP and CMIP agents) that live at the > > >> application layer, and layer management protocols that control other > > >> protocols at the same layer. Routing protocols are specifically > > >> defined as layer management. > > >> > > >> Static routes do start at the application layer, but are sent by > > >> system management to network layer management. > > >> > > >> Again people -- PLEASE do not assume the simple 7 layer model that > > >> Cisco tends to present was the end of all protocol stack development. > > >> It wasn't. > > >> > > >> If you want to coerce some protocol into a model (or a generation of > > >> the model) that doesn't include it, feel free. But what the actual > > >> source standards say isn't really a matter for discussion, unless you > > >> want to create new models. > > >> > > >> > > > >> >__ > > >> > > > >> >Thomas Crowe > > >> >Senior Systems Engineer / Architect > > >> >CTS Professional Services - Atlanta > > >> >Phone: 770-664-3900 > > >> >*** Note New Cell Number *** > > >> >Cell: 678-521-0360 > > >> >__ > > >> > > > >> >-Original Message- > > >> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >> >Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 11:27 PM > > >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> >Subject: Re: which layer do the ospf bgp rip work on [7:20953] > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >Network layer. Routing is a fundamental component of the network > layer. > > >> > > > >> >At 10:14 PM 9/24/01, lhill peng wrote: > > >> >>which layer do the routing protocol such as ospf rip bgp eigrp work > on? > > >> >>sb said that they are on application, others on network > > >> >>what is the right answer?? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >Priscilla Oppenheimer > > >> >http://www.priscilla.com > > >> > > > >> >[GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a > > name > > >> >of Thomas Crowe.vcf] > > >-- > > >David Madland > > >Sr. Network Engineer > > >CCIE# 2016 > > >Qwest Communications Int. Inc. > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >612-664-3367 > > > > > >"Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" > -- > David Madland > Sr. Network Engineer > CCIE# 2016 > Qwest Communications Int. Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 612-664-3367 > > "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=21080&t=20953 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
