Re: 640-900 BSCI or 640-503 Routing [7:36158]
- Original Message - From: Mohammed Fahim To: Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 12:15 AM Subject: Re: 640-900 BSCI or 640-503 Routing [7:36158] > Hi Oletu > Its not CISSP, its CCIP exam, If you are not sure of CISSP, here it is, its > a exam for security professional who have 3 yrs of real time security > experience and is administered by Internation Information Systems security > Certification Consortium or (ISC)2. you can visit www.cissp.com for further > details > Hope you understand. > > regards > Fahim > Cisco Security Specialist > > wrote in message > news:... > > If you are considering taking the CISSP exam at a later date, it would be > > better you take the BSCI exam. It was added when Cisco added the new set > of > > CQS exams. The BSCI is more wide and extensive than the 640-503 exam. > > > > However, if you do not want to cover the additional materials, then go for > > the 640-503, but when you want to write the CISSP exam tomorrow, you must > > write the BSCI (640-900) exam despite the fact that you have taken the > > 640-503 exam before. Writing the 640-900 exam, fullfils two exam > > requirements(CCNP track) and CISSP track but the 640-504 only count > towards > > your CCNP. > > > > Think of the time you would have saved, the additional knowledge, the > $125, > > etc when you take the 640-900 instead of the 640-504 exam. > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/current_exam > > s/640-900.html > > > > Enjoy. > > > > Regards. > > Oletu > > - Original Message - > > From: Colin > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 6:28 PM > > Subject: 640-900 BSCI or 640-503 Routing [7:36158] > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > I was looking at the CCNP Exam page on the Cisco's web page and for the > > > Routing exam, the had two test listed. They are 640-503 Routing and > > > 640-900 BSCI. Why would one choose to take one exam over the other? > > > When was the 640-900 BSCI test added? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Colin > > _ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36198&t=36158 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What after CCNA?? [7:36215]
With your CCNA, you are qualify to take CSS1 (Cisco Security Specialist 1) exam, it is a four modules exam, viz PIX, VPN,MCNS and CSIDS exams for this Specialist path. If you want to continue in the Cisco career path CCNP would be a good choice than CCDA, It all depends whether you prefer the design or support aspect of Cisco networking. Enjoy Oletu - Original Message - From: Gandre Amit To: Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 7:46 AM Subject: What after CCNA?? [7:36215] > Hi > I got through my CCNA yesterday and I am looking forward to taking other > certifications. > > I had the CCDA and CCNP in mind. I am not sure though which one to take. > Also, if there is a Cisco certification that deals with Security, I would > like to do that. > > Another factor is that, I do not have the money to pay for any courses > and so this is going to be self study. Woudl anyone recommend doing CCNP or > any higher security certification without a course or access to a lab.. > >BTW has anyone taken the SSCP and if so what books did u use.. > Please advice. > Amit _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36224&t=36215 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reposting again: NAS and NACServer [7:36218]
It means your Network Access Server like a AS5300 must have IOS v11.1 to be able to support the TACACS+ protocol on your CiscoSecure Access Control Server v2.3 installed on your Solaris V2.51 or V2.6, V7, V8 or IOS v11.2 to support RADIUS protocol. The requirement refer to both the Network Access Server(Cisco Box) and the Cisco Secure Access control server(Solaris). Enjoy Oletu - Original Message - From: John Green To: Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:07 AM Subject: Reposting again: NAS and NACServer [7:36218] > i am reposting this again. if someone could help me > with this > > -- > Network Access Server and Network Access Control > Server are two different boxes ? > > eg CiscoSecure Access Control Server (unix) is a > software that is installed on Solaris box, to which > a > Network Access Server like a AS5300 can connect to > or > vice-versa for user authentication and authorization > purposes ? > > but if you would refer to the software > specifications > as mentioned in > > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/pcat/sqasux.htm1 > it refers to IOS as well. > > Software specifications for CiscoSecure Access > Control > Server v2.3 for UNIX (Solaris). > > Solaris V2.51 or V2.6, V7, V8 > IOS v11.1 (TACACS+) > IOS v11.2 (RADIUS) > > the Solaris OS versions refer to the fact that the > Access Control Server software can be installed onto > these Solaris Operating system versions. fine. > where is this IOS ? where is this IOS installed ? > > is the logical diagram ok as below > > NAS---User >| >| > AccessControl > server > > is the logical flow ok ? > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > http://sports.yahoo.com _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36227&t=36218 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please help me answer this question [7:36295]
Ask the question again...h - Original Message - From: Love Cisco To: Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 7:15 PM Subject: Please help me answer this question [7:36295] > 1. Which of the following customers can probably meet their security > requirements with a simple firewall system? > A. Company ABC wants to make sure customers can see public marketing data > but not proprietary sales figures. > B. University ABC want to make sure students can see but not change their > grades in administrative database. > C. Company XYZ wants to make sure employees do not download software from > unauthorized site. > D. University XYZ wants to make sure that public central software developed > at the university stops working after a period of time if the user does not > pay shareware fees. > = > I think C is right. But some people think A. > > What do you think? Why? _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36308&t=36295 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please help me answer this question [7:36295]
The catch in that question is the word 'Simple' For you to implement option A, you must have a Firewall system having at least three interface(inside,outside,dmz) so that you can utilize the DMS concept and put the public marketing data (The word 'Public' is another word for dmz-The 3rd interface, where public data in a good Security design should be kept) there and put the proprietary sales figures in your inside (Private) network. That is the only way the firewall can help control access to these two set of data. For option C, a Firewall with just two interface(inside and outside) or even a Cisco Router with Cisco Firewall IOS will do the job, just implement CBAC or a websense Server to filter out the unwanted site. Again more configurations would be needed to achieve the goal stipulated in option A, at least you would configure the dmz interface parameters, etc; while one or just two lines of command would accomplish the goal in option C. So it is obvious that from hardward and software point of view, option C is the more 'simple firewall' aproach for any one. Enjoy Godswill Oletu CCNP,CCDP,CSS1. - Original Message - From: Brian To: Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 12:39 AM Subject: Re: Please help me answer this question [7:36295] > to me b and d are out of the running because they are looking to prevent > people from modifying data, thats an application issue. So youre left > with a and c. A seems to be a problem best solved by putting the info on > separate drives or devices, so I vote c. A case could be made for a > however, if you say put the data on separate devices then use the firewall > to permit some access and prevent others. I'm stickin with c. > > Brian > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Clayton Dukes wrote: > > > Hmmm > > > > > > Clayton Dukes > > CCNA, CCDA, CCDP, CCNP, NCC > > (h) 904-292-1881 > > (c) 904-477-7825 > > #rm -rf /bin/laden > > #kill -9 /bin/laden > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Love Cisco" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:15 PM > > Subject: Please help me answer this question [7:36295] > > > > > > > 1. Which of the following customers can probably meet their security > > > requirements with a simple firewall system? > > > A. Company ABC wants to make sure customers can see public marketing data > > > but not proprietary sales figures. > > > B. University ABC want to make sure students can see but not change their > > > grades in administrative database. > > > C. Company XYZ wants to make sure employees do not download software from > > > unauthorized site. > > > D. University XYZ wants to make sure that public central software > > developed > > > at the university stops working after a period of time if the user does > > not > > > pay shareware fees. > > > = > > > I think C is right. But some people think A. > > > > > > What do you think? Why? _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36309&t=36295 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Passed CSIDSPM Exam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [7:36306]
Hi Kevin, I have the CCSA admin guide which might be okay for it. But It is CCSA NG I want to write and not CCSA CP 2000. CSSA NG is the new exam. Regards. Oletu - Original Message - From: Kevin Cullimore To: Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 2:34 PM Subject: Re: Passed CSIDSPM Exam [7:36306] > For the CCSA CP 2000 exam, the manuals were more than sufficient (assuming > you have an adequate grasp of "open" security technologies). > - Original Message - > From: "Godswill HO" > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 3:29 AM > Subject: Passed CSIDSPM Exam [7:36306] > > > > Am very grateful to you all. The group really helped me through out my > CSS1 > > exam track. It has been a big learn place where knowledge is shared.I sat > and > > passed the Cisco Secure Intrusion Detection Systems with Policy > > Manager(CSIDSPM) version 2.1 exam today to complete the CSS1(Cisco > Security > > Specialist 1) track. > > > > It was a beast of an exam, totally different from the first three. It was > a > > tough battle but It is all over, thanks once more. > > > > You might think CCIE would be the next, no not at all, next in the list is > > CISSP (Certified Information Systems Security Professional) or CCSA > > (Checkpoint Certified Security Administrator). I will be grateful if > someone > > who have taken the CCSA exam help me with the best book/study materials to > > use. I can only locate materials for the CCSA CP 2000 exam, but I want to > > take > > the CCSA NG exam which is the latest version. Any help would be > appreciated. > > > > Enjoy. > > > > Godswill Oletu CCNP,CCDP,CSS1. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36330&t=36306 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TWO ISP AND ONE FAILURE [7:36371]
HSRP-Hot Standby Router Protocol would be your best bet, BGP might come into play but it require more complications and coorperations from your both upstream providers(ISPs). However with HSRP configured on both routers: Use the Config below as a guide: FOR ROUTER1 to ISP 1 (Include all DNS, default gateways and specific parameters pointing to ISP1's networt here) int serial 0 ip address n.n.n.n n.n.n.n (ISP1's serial interface IP address) interface Ethernet1 ip address x.x.x.x x.x.x.x (inside network) standby priority 105 standby preempt standby ip x.x.x.x+z (where z can be a +ve or -ve number, just a free IP address) standby track Serial0 FOR ROUTER2 to ISP 2 (Include all DNS, default gateways and specific parameters pointing to ISP2's networt here) interface serial 0 ip address k.k.k.k k.k.k.k (ISP2's serial interface IP address) interface Ethernet1 ip address p.p.p.p p.p.p.p (Inside Network) standby priority 100 standby ip x.x.x.x+z (where z can be a +ve or -ve number, just a free IP address) NOTE: Set your inside server's gateway address to x.x.x.x+z .Router2 above will be the active router thus the router to ISP1.However if ISP one becomes unavailable, its priority will be reduced from 105 making router two to become the active router. Because of the preempt command Router1 resumes its active role whenever it become available again and router2 would then revert back to be the standy router. I guess this might help you, you can check Cisco site for more information. (http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/hsrp_bgp.html) Enjoy Godswill Oletu CSS1,CCDP,CCNP. - Original Message - From: Yassel Omar Izquierdo Souchay To: Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:10 AM Subject: TWO ISP AND ONE FAILURE [7:36371] > Hello i have a frecuent porblem with one of my isp, i have two cisco routers > and each one to different isp. Frequentily i have to change the gateway of > one of my servers, because one isp is failure. > I want to know if with one of BGP, OSPF, RIP, NAT or other protocol i could > do the change automatically to the other active isp. > It happening me right now. And when i have to do that i have to reset one of > my servers.. :S. Is a costs operatrion its a mail server. > So if somebody knows how to resolve between routers with different isp each > one, how to route accross the other good gateway. > > Thnx in advance > Yassl _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36388&t=36371 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cissps [7:36391]
Though it is a paper and ink certification, it seems to be the Security certification most recruiters know off. If you can't beat them join them. I have not seem any recruiter naming CSS1 or stuff like that, though that might be because it is relatively new, however they do not even give the CCNP+Security specialist good exposure. Many also consider the CISSP as the security equavilant of CCIE, I really do not seem the similarities or where both of them have a tie. Enjoy. Godswill Oletu - Original Message - From: Chris Sweeting To: Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 8:52 AM Subject: Cissps [7:36391] > Is Cissp worth getting? _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36401&t=36391 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIP exam info [7:36483]
BSCI is different from the BSCN exam. The BSCI exam is more extensive and include additional materials like IS-IS, etc and it is one of the exam you must take in the CCIP track. BSCN cannot substitute BSCI in the CCIP track, but the CCNP/CCDP track the BSCI exam can be stand in for the BSCN exam. It means that if you take the BSCI exam, you have fulfilled one exam requirement for 1.)CCNP/CCDP track and 2.)CCIP track. But the BSCN have nothing to do with the CCIP track. Enjoy. Godswill Oletu - Original Message - From: Christophe Nemeth To: Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:48 AM Subject: CCIP exam info [7:36483] > Hi, > > I would like to go for CCIP and I have a question about one of the exams. > > What is the difference between BSCN and BSCI. > I have the courseware for BSCN and I would like to know if that is the same > as for BSCI. > thanks a lot > > cheers > > chris _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36486&t=36483 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco Volunteering in a Village in Nigeria. [7:66028]
Hi Mark, These fall in the category called 419, the criminal code for advanced fees fraud in the Nigeria constitution. Am a Nigerian but lives in the USA. I normally receive emails like that with lots of variations but with the same objective of one benefiting upto 20% of about $88 million deal. All I need do intially is to send them my bank account to which this money would be deposited, then I have to send some $$$ to facilitate the transfer. I hope no one here fall for those kind of email. - Original Message - From: "Mark Smith" To: Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 12:24 PM Subject: Re: Cisco Volunteering in a Village in Nigeria. [7:66028] > Usually when I get a letter from Nigeria someone's either asking for my bank > account information so they can transfer millions of ill-gotten $$$ into it > and then they'll transfer most of it later on to another account but I get > to keep some of it for my own trouble or, in a variation of the above > scheme, they need me to first send them a few thousand $$$ up front so they > can then send me the several millions of dollars. The last one I received > was a beg for someone to send high end medical equipment (to be paid for > later, of course) over there as there was a huge need for it right now and a > lot of money to be made in the market. > Cisco training nowthis is a new one. > > > > Quoting olubunmi : > > > Hey Folks... > > Nigeria is slowly grapping with the IT world and > > people are ready to learn > > here. i am looking for volunteers with whom i can work > > together to set up a > > a Cisco academy in Uyo , south South Nigeria.This may > > be starting any time > > within the next 3 months. I will give details to > > whoever is interested. Uyo > > is a peaceful state capital in south south Nigeria , > > with a University, a > > polytechnic, and a metropolitan hub for the south > > south NIgeria. > > Volunteer(s) will enjoy the hospitality of the town, > > help bring up locals > > and motivate unversity and secondary schools student > > towards a career in IT. > > I welcome anyone interested to email me ; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for further > > details. > > Kindly pass this message across to anyone you know > > might be interested. > > thank you > > olubunmi Isinkaye CCNP, > > Lagos Nigeria > > Cisco Certification Digest wrote: > > Cisco Certification Digest Thursday, March 20 2003 > > Volume 02 : Number 2494 > > > > > > > > In this issue of the Cisco Certification Mailing List > > Digest: > > RE: 6509 cam entries [7:65758] > > Re: RSM Equivalent for the Catalyst 6500 [7:65760] > > RE: IP header [7:65718] > > RE: CCNP Certification [7:65759] > > IPSec and nated ISDN router [7:65782] > > pix 501 limitations [7:65785] > > RE: Anybody heard of banff counters? [7:65765] > > Re: Cisco Instructor - CCNA Class [7:65742] > > RE: FrameRelay dlci + IP address [7:65713] > > DS3 bandwidth issues [7:65790] > > Re: IPSec and nated ISDN router [7:65782] > > Re: pix 501 limitations [7:65785] > > Re: IP header [7:65718] > > Re: Getting out of hand?? [7:65676] > > RE: PIX VPN home access question [7:65666] > > RE: Unable to delete flash [7:65529] > > RE: Rack Mount Kit for 4000 [7:65752] > > Re: IP header [7:65718] > > Re: DS3 bandwidth issues [7:65790] > > RE: AW: ISDN Callback Config [7:65649] > > Re: DS3 bandwidth issues [7:65790] > > span sessions [7:65531] > > RE: ISDN 803 Callbacks [7:65754] > > dial up problem [7:65801] > > Difference on L3 switching of Cat4500 and Cat6500? > > [7:65802] > > RSP7000 and RSP-4-COOKIE message [7:65803] > > Attack on Iraq [7:65805] > > RE: is 10baseT dead? [7:65263] > > PIX Questions [7:65806] > > RE: Cisco Instructor - CCNA Class [7:65742] > > RE: Finding device on network via cisco switch > > [7:65670] > > Re: DS3 bandwidth issues [7:65790] > > Large number of VLANS [7:65815] > > RE: ISDN 803 Callbacks [7:65754] > > Re: Difference on L3 switching of Cat4500 and Cat6500? > > [7:65818] > > 2511 Reverse Telnet [7:65819] > > RE: ISDN 803 Callbacks [7:65754] > > RE: ISDN 803 Callbacks [7:65754] > > eBGP Multi-hop [7:65823] > > RE: Voice Level Adjustment [7:65701] > > RE: Convert from Custome Queue to CBWFQ [7:65700] > > RE: 2511 Reverse Telnet [7:65819] > > RE: Large number of VLANS [7:65815] > > Re: 2511 Reverse Telnet [7:65828] > > RE: IPSec and nated ISDN router [7:65782] > > OT: Satellite Modem [7:65830] > > RE: Policy based routing [7:65776] > > Re: Difference on L3 switching of Cat4500 and Cat6500? > > [7:65832] > > RE: Large number of VLANS [7:65815] > > Why did Cisco do this? Off Topic [7:65834] > > Re: eBGP Multi-hop [7:65823] > > RE: eBGP Multi-hop [7:65823] > > Cisco 2000 problems [7:65837] > > RE: 2511 Reverse Telnet [7:65819] > > Re: Difference on L3 switching of Cat4500 and Cat6500? > > [7:65839] > > Re: Open http: traffic on firewall... [7:65755] > > Re: Large number of VLANS [7:65815] > > RE: Convert from Custome Queue to CBWFQ [7:65700] > > Anyone configured nat under tunnel [7:65843] > > Re: eBGP Multi-h
Connecting Bay Router with Cisco Router (Back-to-Back) [7:58036]
Hi group, Has anyone done this kind of connection before? Is it possible to connect a Cisco router and Bay(Nortel) Router together, back to back? Am thinking of doing this in my home Network. I have a couple of Bay Routers (Nortel) and I thought it will be great! simulating a WAN connection between them and my Cisco routers through the Serial interfaces and NOT THE ETHERNET INTERFACE. This I can do if both routers were Cisco by using a DTE/DCE cables. However, in this scenario which kind of cables are mine looking to buy, so that this Serial Interface-WAN connection would be done (OR HAS CISCO AND NORTEL NOT THOUGHT OF CO-EXISTING IN THIS FORMAT YET?) Your comment(s) however little would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Godswill Oletu N/B Since this has to do with Cisco connectivity, I figure that it is not an off-topic, If I go to a Nortel news group, I likely would be told to find a Cisco news group to answer that question, so a Nortel group might not be the answer. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58036&t=58036 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I seems Confused.....Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255]
Hi all, Where are mine going wrong? Has anyone implemented a Peer-to-Peer network involving just two computers with ONLY TCP/IP Protocol? I have been trying to do it but keeping failing. NetBEUI is working fine, I can transfer files in between both computers. But TCP/IP protocolis not working across. Am trying to connect a Window NT to Windows 98 Machine. I used the normal cross over cable (1-3, 2-6, 3-1, 6-2) connection. localhost pings alright, IP-address to each machine can be pinged from that very machine only. Hosts file have been edited and it is resolving fine...but I can ping one machine from the other. I have double checked everything but cannot figure out whats happening. I know I have been implementing peer-to-peer networks but I had not gotten into this kind of scenario.. Any forethought would help, thanks Godswill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58255&t=58255 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I seems Confused.....Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255]
Hi Mark, I have done all that. The crossover cable is okay. NeTBEUI is working fine. I can see both computers through Network Neigbourhood; copy files from one computer to the other. Everthing about NetBEUI is kool. I have alos edited the hosts/lmhost files on each computer (this only help to resolve the IP Address to the netbios name.) IP addresses are Computer A=192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0 and Computer B=192.168.0.2/255.255.255.0 On Computer A, I can ping 192.168.0.1, localhost and 127.0.0.1 and it will response fine. On Computer B, I can also ping 192.168.0.2, localhost and 127.0.0.1 and it will response fine. (TCP/IP stack seems perfectly installed)!!! But I cannot ping A from B, neither can I ping B from A. This is the dumbest thing I have ever done and it is messing me up. Or is it impossible? - Original Message - From: Mark W. Odette II To: Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 8:22 PM Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > Check your subnet masks for each computer. > Either specify Computer B as the default gateway for Computer A and > vice-versa, or don't specify a default gateway at all. > > After that, you have to configure the lmhosts/hosts files if you want to > resolve machine names between each other (quickly). > > Verify that your cross-over cable is good, or plug each computer into a > hub/switch. > > It's that simple. > > Cheers! > -Mark > > -Original Message- > From: Godswill Oletu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 6:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > Hi all, > > Where are mine going wrong? Has anyone implemented a Peer-to-Peer > network > involving just two computers with ONLY TCP/IP Protocol? > > I have been trying to do it but keeping failing. NetBEUI is working > fine, I > can transfer files in between both computers. But TCP/IP protocolis not > working across. Am trying to connect a Window NT to Windows 98 Machine. > I > used > the normal cross over cable (1-3, 2-6, 3-1, 6-2) connection. localhost > pings > alright, IP-address to each machine can be pinged from that very machine > only. > Hosts file have been edited and it is resolving fine...but I can ping > one > machine from the other. > > I have double checked everything but cannot figure out whats happening. > I > know > I have been implementing peer-to-peer networks but I had not gotten into > this > kind of scenario.. > > Any forethought would help, thanks > > Godswill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58293&t=58255 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I seems Confused.....Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255]
Hi Mark, Actually before now I had been checking the routing table 'route print' and also the netbios cache. On Computer A with IP address 192.168.0.1, there is a route to network 192.168.0.0 through interface 192.168.0.1 and on Computer B with IP address 192.168.0.2, there is a route to network 192.168.0.0 through interface 192.168.0.1 (seem great!). I will try reinstalling the OS, because I look stupified, however currently am trying it on another computer to see what happens. What I did not mention is that, on both Computer A and B, I have two NICs each. My intention is to implement double NATing. Computer B is connected to the Internet through RJ45 broadband and this connection is working great!. My goal was to NAT this connection to Computer A and then NAT it again from computer A downstream (I have not reached here), I do not think the presense of two NICs in each computer would have any thing to do with thei. Thanks men! Godswill - Original Message - From: Mark W. Odette II To: Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > Oletu- > What you are trying to do is not impossible. Many of us do this all the > time to migrate data from one machine to another without burdening the > Hub-based LAN or if the computer is all by itself and is being upgraded. > Case in point is the situation where a Win9x/Pentium 166Mhz workstation > is being replaced with a Windows XP/Pentium III 1.8Ghz workstation... > NetBEUI isn't a protocol option on XP, as it isn't supported anymore- > So, it's TCP/IP or IPX! > > Configuration of each computer is correct; the fact that you can operate > with success running NetBEUI says that your physical layer is also > solid, i.e., NIC's and Cross-over cable. > > Next thing to do is (for informational purposes) to 'route print' or a > 'netstat -r' at the command line to determine the TCP/IP stack has > proper routing information. Optionally issue the 'nbtstat -c' or > 'nbtstat -r' to see if you are getting any netbios caching... > > After collecting this information, I would remove the TCP/IP protocol, > reboot, reinstall TCP/IP protocol, install most recent SP for OS, and > test again... If that doesn't resolve the problem, then seek out > replacement drivers for the NIC(s). > > This pretty much addresses every possibility of failure between two > Windows-based computers that are directly connected to each other with a > cross-over cable. > > ... One other thought- You wouldn't have some kind of personal firewall > installed/previously installed on either one of these computers by > chance, would you!?!?! > > I have seen all kinds of crazy stuff occur on MS boxes that had had any > of the different flavors of "Personal Firewalls" installed, which > usually required complete removal of the TCP/IP protocol, and then > sifting through the networking portion of the registry to recover the > machine. The alternative was to reinstall the OS from scratch. The > firewalls in question were the Norton Personal Firewall, the Network > Associates Desktop Firewall, BlackIce, and one other I can't recall the > name of. Just some extra info to chew on for possibility. > > Good luck, and let us know what you find... > > -Mark > > > -Original Message- > From: Godswill Oletu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:04 PM > To: Mark W. Odette II; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > Hi Mark, > > I have done all that. The crossover cable is okay. NeTBEUI is working > fine. > I can see both computers through Network Neigbourhood; copy files from > one > computer to the other. Everthing about NetBEUI is kool. I have alos > edited > the hosts/lmhost files on each computer (this only help to resolve the > IP > Address to the netbios name.) > > IP addresses are Computer A=192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0 and Computer > B=192.168.0.2/255.255.255.0 > > On Computer A, I can ping 192.168.0.1, localhost and 127.0.0.1 and it > will > response fine. On Computer B, I can also ping 192.168.0.2, localhost and > 127.0.0.1 and it will response fine. (TCP/IP stack seems perfectly > installed)!!! > > But I cannot ping A from B, neither can I ping B from A. > > This is the dumbest thing I have ever done and it is messing me up. > > Or is it impossible? > > - Original Message - > From: Mark W. Odette II > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 8:22 PM > Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > > > Check your subnet masks for each computer. > > Either specify
Re: I seems Confused.....Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255]
Hi Mark, So far... I brought in another Win98 system. TCP/IP and NetBEUI is working great between the two Win98 Systems. I can Ping and do all sorts of things between those two Win98 Systems. Now, same old problem, TCP/IP cannot work between Win98 and WinNT 4.0, only NetBEUI is working so far. I just swap the cable to a Win98 system and it start working. Have you personally implemented a peer to peer network between a WinNT 4.0 and Win98 System? Everything on the WinNT system looks okay, however am determined to fine a logical conclusion to this. What are not getting right now? Regards. Godswill - Original Message - From: Mark W. Odette II To: Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > Oletu- > What you are trying to do is not impossible. Many of us do this all the > time to migrate data from one machine to another without burdening the > Hub-based LAN or if the computer is all by itself and is being upgraded. > Case in point is the situation where a Win9x/Pentium 166Mhz workstation > is being replaced with a Windows XP/Pentium III 1.8Ghz workstation... > NetBEUI isn't a protocol option on XP, as it isn't supported anymore- > So, it's TCP/IP or IPX! > > Configuration of each computer is correct; the fact that you can operate > with success running NetBEUI says that your physical layer is also > solid, i.e., NIC's and Cross-over cable. > > Next thing to do is (for informational purposes) to 'route print' or a > 'netstat -r' at the command line to determine the TCP/IP stack has > proper routing information. Optionally issue the 'nbtstat -c' or > 'nbtstat -r' to see if you are getting any netbios caching... > > After collecting this information, I would remove the TCP/IP protocol, > reboot, reinstall TCP/IP protocol, install most recent SP for OS, and > test again... If that doesn't resolve the problem, then seek out > replacement drivers for the NIC(s). > > This pretty much addresses every possibility of failure between two > Windows-based computers that are directly connected to each other with a > cross-over cable. > > ... One other thought- You wouldn't have some kind of personal firewall > installed/previously installed on either one of these computers by > chance, would you!?!?! > > I have seen all kinds of crazy stuff occur on MS boxes that had had any > of the different flavors of "Personal Firewalls" installed, which > usually required complete removal of the TCP/IP protocol, and then > sifting through the networking portion of the registry to recover the > machine. The alternative was to reinstall the OS from scratch. The > firewalls in question were the Norton Personal Firewall, the Network > Associates Desktop Firewall, BlackIce, and one other I can't recall the > name of. Just some extra info to chew on for possibility. > > Good luck, and let us know what you find... > > -Mark > > > -Original Message- > From: Godswill Oletu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:04 PM > To: Mark W. Odette II; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > Hi Mark, > > I have done all that. The crossover cable is okay. NeTBEUI is working > fine. > I can see both computers through Network Neigbourhood; copy files from > one > computer to the other. Everthing about NetBEUI is kool. I have alos > edited > the hosts/lmhost files on each computer (this only help to resolve the > IP > Address to the netbios name.) > > IP addresses are Computer A=192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0 and Computer > B=192.168.0.2/255.255.255.0 > > On Computer A, I can ping 192.168.0.1, localhost and 127.0.0.1 and it > will > response fine. On Computer B, I can also ping 192.168.0.2, localhost and > 127.0.0.1 and it will response fine. (TCP/IP stack seems perfectly > installed)!!! > > But I cannot ping A from B, neither can I ping B from A. > > This is the dumbest thing I have ever done and it is messing me up. > > Or is it impossible? > > - Original Message - > From: Mark W. Odette II > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 8:22 PM > Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > > > Check your subnet masks for each computer. > > Either specify Computer B as the default gateway for Computer A and > > vice-versa, or don't specify a default gateway at all. > > > > After that, you have to configure the lmhosts/hosts files if you want > to > > resolve machine names between each other (quickly). > > > > Verify that your cross-over cable is good, or plug each
Re: I seems Confused.....Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255]
Followup... WinNT System have Service pack 6 installed. Regards. - Original Message - From: Mark W. Odette II To: Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > Oletu- > What you are trying to do is not impossible. Many of us do this all the > time to migrate data from one machine to another without burdening the > Hub-based LAN or if the computer is all by itself and is being upgraded. > Case in point is the situation where a Win9x/Pentium 166Mhz workstation > is being replaced with a Windows XP/Pentium III 1.8Ghz workstation... > NetBEUI isn't a protocol option on XP, as it isn't supported anymore- > So, it's TCP/IP or IPX! > > Configuration of each computer is correct; the fact that you can operate > with success running NetBEUI says that your physical layer is also > solid, i.e., NIC's and Cross-over cable. > > Next thing to do is (for informational purposes) to 'route print' or a > 'netstat -r' at the command line to determine the TCP/IP stack has > proper routing information. Optionally issue the 'nbtstat -c' or > 'nbtstat -r' to see if you are getting any netbios caching... > > After collecting this information, I would remove the TCP/IP protocol, > reboot, reinstall TCP/IP protocol, install most recent SP for OS, and > test again... If that doesn't resolve the problem, then seek out > replacement drivers for the NIC(s). > > This pretty much addresses every possibility of failure between two > Windows-based computers that are directly connected to each other with a > cross-over cable. > > ... One other thought- You wouldn't have some kind of personal firewall > installed/previously installed on either one of these computers by > chance, would you!?!?! > > I have seen all kinds of crazy stuff occur on MS boxes that had had any > of the different flavors of "Personal Firewalls" installed, which > usually required complete removal of the TCP/IP protocol, and then > sifting through the networking portion of the registry to recover the > machine. The alternative was to reinstall the OS from scratch. The > firewalls in question were the Norton Personal Firewall, the Network > Associates Desktop Firewall, BlackIce, and one other I can't recall the > name of. Just some extra info to chew on for possibility. > > Good luck, and let us know what you find... > > -Mark > > > -Original Message- > From: Godswill Oletu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:04 PM > To: Mark W. Odette II; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > Hi Mark, > > I have done all that. The crossover cable is okay. NeTBEUI is working > fine. > I can see both computers through Network Neigbourhood; copy files from > one > computer to the other. Everthing about NetBEUI is kool. I have alos > edited > the hosts/lmhost files on each computer (this only help to resolve the > IP > Address to the netbios name.) > > IP addresses are Computer A=192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0 and Computer > B=192.168.0.2/255.255.255.0 > > On Computer A, I can ping 192.168.0.1, localhost and 127.0.0.1 and it > will > response fine. On Computer B, I can also ping 192.168.0.2, localhost and > 127.0.0.1 and it will response fine. (TCP/IP stack seems perfectly > installed)!!! > > But I cannot ping A from B, neither can I ping B from A. > > This is the dumbest thing I have ever done and it is messing me up. > > Or is it impossible? > > - Original Message - > From: Mark W. Odette II > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 8:22 PM > Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > > > Check your subnet masks for each computer. > > Either specify Computer B as the default gateway for Computer A and > > vice-versa, or don't specify a default gateway at all. > > > > After that, you have to configure the lmhosts/hosts files if you want > to > > resolve machine names between each other (quickly). > > > > Verify that your cross-over cable is good, or plug each computer into > a > > hub/switch. > > > > It's that simple. > > > > Cheers! > > -Mark > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Godswill Oletu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 6:26 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > > > Hi all, > > > > Where are mine going wrong? Has anyone implemented a Peer-to-Peer > > network > > i
Re: I seems Confused.....Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255]
Hi, At this level what am really concern about is being able to Ping the WinNT system (Service Pack 6) from the Win98 System and also the other way round. After this I will be able to to take care of the ICS and NAT issue. I just first want TCP/IP to run between both systems. Here is my TCP/IP config for each System: (Major concern is linking Ethernet adapter F5D50006 in Windows NT with Ethernet adapter 3 in Windows 98 below:) Windows NT IP Configuration Host Name . . . . . . . . . : xbsabga001 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . : Node Type . . . . . . . . . : Broadcast NetBIOS Scope ID. . . . . . : IP Routing Enabled. . . . . : Yes WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . : No NetBIOS Resolution Uses DNS : No PPP adapter NdisWan5: Description . . . . . . . . : NdisWan5 NdisWan Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-00-00-00-00-00 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : PPP adapter NdisWan4: Description . . . . . . . . : NdisWan4 NdisWan Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-00-00-00-00-00 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : Ethernet adapter AMDPCN1: Description . . . . . . . . : AMDPCN1 AMD PCNET Family Ethernet Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-80-5F-5C-1D-CC DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 100.100.0.1 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 255.255.0.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : Ethernet adapter F5D50006: Description . . . . . . . . : F5D50006 F5D5000, PCI Card/Desktop Network PCI Card Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-30-BD-04-82-D6 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Major concern is linking Ethernet adapter 3, below with Ethernet adapter F5D50006 above) Windows 98 IP Configuration Host Name . . . . . . . . . : ewwax011 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . : n.n.n.n Node Type . . . . . . . . . : Broadcast NetBIOS Scope ID. . . . . . : IP Routing Enabled. . . . . : No WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . : No NetBIOS Resolution Uses DNS : Yes 0 Ethernet adapter : Description . . . . . . . . : PPP Adapter. Physical Address. . . . . . : 4B-A5-53-64-AA-B0 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : Yes IP Address. . . . . . . . . : n.n.n.n Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 255.255.0.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : n.n.n.n DHCP Server . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255 Primary WINS Server . . . . : Secondary WINS Server . . . : Lease Obtained. . . . . . . : 01 01 80 12:00:00 AM Lease Expires . . . . . . . : 01 01 80 12:00:00 AM 1 Ethernet adapter : Description . . . . . . . . : PPP Adapter. Physical Address. . . . . . : 4A-65-B3-5A-B0-0C DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : Yes IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : DHCP Server . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255 Primary WINS Server . . . . : Secondary WINS Server . . . : Lease Obtained. . . . . . . : Lease Expires . . . . . . . : 2 Ethernet adapter : Description . . . . . . . . : OVISLINK NWAY NIC Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-4A-54-E1-3B-90 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : Yes IP Address. . . . . . . . . : n.n.n.n Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 255.255.240.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : n.n.n.n DHCP Server . . . . . . . . : n.n.n.n Primary WINS Server . . . . : Secondary WINS Server . . . : Lease Obtained. . . . . . . : 11 29 02 4:07:58 PM Lease Expires . . . . . . . : 11 30 02 1:36:14 AM 3 Ethernet adapter : Description . . . . . . . . : D-Link DFE-530TX+ PCI Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-02-AD-DE-D5-A9 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.2 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : Primary WINS Server . . . . : Secondary WINS Server . . . : Lease Obtained. . . . . . . : Lease Expires . . . . . . . : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Thanks man! Regards. Godswill - Original Message - From: Symon Thurlow To: Godswill Oletu ; Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 5:12 PM Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] Can a WIN98 machine act as a router? I have had issue slike this before, and they are normally attributed to dodgy IP stacks, especially on win98 machines. Godswill, can you post the results of a winipcfg on the 98 machine and a ipconfig /all on the nt machine? Do you have IP forwarding enabled on the NT machine? Do you have any internet connection sharing enabled on the 98 machine? The first
Re: I seems Confused.....Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255]
I have just one NT system at home. - Original Message - From: Symon Thurlow To: Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 5:15 PM Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > Does another WINNT system talk to the other one? > > -Original Message- > From: Godswill Oletu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 29 November 2002 21:45 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > > Hi Mark, > > So far... > I brought in another Win98 system. TCP/IP and NetBEUI is working great > between the two Win98 Systems. I can Ping and do all sorts of things > between those two Win98 Systems. > > Now, same old problem, TCP/IP cannot work between Win98 and WinNT 4.0, > only NetBEUI is working so far. I just swap the cable to a Win98 system > and it start working. > > Have you personally implemented a peer to peer network between a WinNT > 4.0 and Win98 System? Everything on the WinNT system looks okay, however > am determined to fine a logical conclusion to this. > > What are not getting right now? > > Regards. > Godswill > > - Original Message - > From: Mark W. Odette II > To: > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 2:03 PM > Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > > > Oletu- > > What you are trying to do is not impossible. Many of us do this all > > the time to migrate data from one machine to another without burdening > > > the Hub-based LAN or if the computer is all by itself and is being > > upgraded. Case in point is the situation where a Win9x/Pentium 166Mhz > > workstation is being replaced with a Windows XP/Pentium III 1.8Ghz > > workstation... NetBEUI isn't a protocol option on XP, as it isn't > > supported anymore- So, it's TCP/IP or IPX! > > > > Configuration of each computer is correct; the fact that you can > > operate with success running NetBEUI says that your physical layer is > > also solid, i.e., NIC's and Cross-over cable. > > > > Next thing to do is (for informational purposes) to 'route print' or a > > > 'netstat -r' at the command line to determine the TCP/IP stack has > > proper routing information. Optionally issue the 'nbtstat -c' or > > 'nbtstat -r' to see if you are getting any netbios caching... > > > > After collecting this information, I would remove the TCP/IP protocol, > > > reboot, reinstall TCP/IP protocol, install most recent SP for OS, and > > test again... If that doesn't resolve the problem, then seek out > > replacement drivers for the NIC(s). > > > > This pretty much addresses every possibility of failure between two > > Windows-based computers that are directly connected to each other with > > > a cross-over cable. > > > > ... One other thought- You wouldn't have some kind of personal > > firewall installed/previously installed on either one of these > > computers by chance, would you!?!?! > > > > I have seen all kinds of crazy stuff occur on MS boxes that had had > > any of the different flavors of "Personal Firewalls" installed, which > > usually required complete removal of the TCP/IP protocol, and then > > sifting through the networking portion of the registry to recover the > > machine. The alternative was to reinstall the OS from scratch. The > > firewalls in question were the Norton Personal Firewall, the Network > > Associates Desktop Firewall, BlackIce, and one other I can't recall > > the name of. Just some extra info to chew on for possibility. > > > > Good luck, and let us know what you find... > > > > -Mark > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Godswill Oletu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:04 PM > > To: Mark W. Odette II; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > I have done all that. The crossover cable is okay. NeTBEUI is working > > fine. I can see both computers through Network Neigbourhood; copy > > files from one > > computer to the other. Everthing about NetBEUI is kool. I have alos > > edited > > the hosts/lmhost files on each computer (this only help to resolve the > > IP > > Address to the netbios name.) > > > > IP addresses are Computer A=192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0 and Computer > > B=192.168.0.2/255.255.255.0 > > > > On Computer A, I can ping 192.168.0.1, localhost and 127.0.0.1 and it > > will response fine. On Compu
Re: I seems Confused.....Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255]
Hi, At this level what am really concern about is being able to Ping the WinNT system (Service Pack 6) from the Win98 System and also the other way round. After this I will be able to to take care of the ICS and NAT issue. I just first want TCP/IP to run between both systems. Here is my TCP/IP config for each System: (Major concern is linking Ethernet adapter F5D50006 in Windows NT with Ethernet adapter 3 in Windows 98 below:) Windows NT IP Configuration Host Name . . . . . . . . . : xbsabga001 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . : Node Type . . . . . . . . . : Broadcast NetBIOS Scope ID. . . . . . : IP Routing Enabled. . . . . : Yes WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . : No NetBIOS Resolution Uses DNS : No PPP adapter NdisWan5: Description . . . . . . . . : NdisWan5 NdisWan Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-00-00-00-00-00 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : PPP adapter NdisWan4: Description . . . . . . . . : NdisWan4 NdisWan Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-00-00-00-00-00 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : Ethernet adapter AMDPCN1: Description . . . . . . . . : AMDPCN1 AMD PCNET Family Ethernet Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-80-5F-5C-1D-CC DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 100.100.0.1 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 255.255.0.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : Ethernet adapter F5D50006: Description . . . . . . . . : F5D50006 F5D5000, PCI Card/Desktop Network PCI Card Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-30-BD-04-82-D6 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Major concern is linking Ethernet adapter 3, below with Ethernet adapter F5D50006 above) Windows 98 IP Configuration Host Name . . . . . . . . . : ewwax011 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . : n.n.n.n Node Type . . . . . . . . . : Broadcast NetBIOS Scope ID. . . . . . : IP Routing Enabled. . . . . : No WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . : No NetBIOS Resolution Uses DNS : Yes 0 Ethernet adapter : Description . . . . . . . . : PPP Adapter. Physical Address. . . . . . : 4B-A5-53-64-AA-B0 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : Yes IP Address. . . . . . . . . : n.n.n.n Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 255.255.0.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : n.n.n.n DHCP Server . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255 Primary WINS Server . . . . : Secondary WINS Server . . . : Lease Obtained. . . . . . . : 01 01 80 12:00:00 AM Lease Expires . . . . . . . : 01 01 80 12:00:00 AM 1 Ethernet adapter : Description . . . . . . . . : PPP Adapter. Physical Address. . . . . . : 4A-65-B3-5A-B0-0C DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : Yes IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 0.0.0.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : DHCP Server . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255 Primary WINS Server . . . . : Secondary WINS Server . . . : Lease Obtained. . . . . . . : Lease Expires . . . . . . . : 2 Ethernet adapter : Description . . . . . . . . : OVISLINK NWAY NIC Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-4A-54-E1-3B-90 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : Yes IP Address. . . . . . . . . : n.n.n.n Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 255.255.240.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : n.n.n.n DHCP Server . . . . . . . . : n.n.n.n Primary WINS Server . . . . : Secondary WINS Server . . . : Lease Obtained. . . . . . . : 11 29 02 4:07:58 PM Lease Expires . . . . . . . : 11 30 02 1:36:14 AM 3 Ethernet adapter : Description . . . . . . . . : D-Link DFE-530TX+ PCI Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . : 00-02-AD-DE-D5-A9 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.2 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . : Primary WINS Server . . . . : Secondary WINS Server . . . : Lease Obtained. . . . . . . : Lease Expires . . . . . . . : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Thanks man! Regards. Godswill - Original Message - From: Symon Thurlow To: Godswill Oletu ; Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 5:12 PM Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] Can a WIN98 machine act as a router? I have had issue slike this before, and they are normally attributed to dodgy IP stacks, especially on win98 machines. Godswill, can you post the results of a winipcfg on the 98 machine and a ipconfig /all on the nt machine? Do you have IP forwarding enabled on the NT machine? Do you have any internet connection sharing enabled on the 98 machine? The first
Re: I seems Confused.....Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255]
Hi Mark and All! This is to thank everyone who responded or think through my question but could not response. I have been able to resolve the problem. Actually, I install Checkpoint NG on the Windows NT 4.0 system for my home lab but had not being using it. So I completely forgot that its security modules still loads in the services. So it drops all traffics. Thanks once again. Regards. Godswill - Original Message - From: Mark W. Odette II To: Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > Oletu- > What you are trying to do is not impossible. Many of us do this all the > time to migrate data from one machine to another without burdening the > Hub-based LAN or if the computer is all by itself and is being upgraded. > Case in point is the situation where a Win9x/Pentium 166Mhz workstation > is being replaced with a Windows XP/Pentium III 1.8Ghz workstation... > NetBEUI isn't a protocol option on XP, as it isn't supported anymore- > So, it's TCP/IP or IPX! > > Configuration of each computer is correct; the fact that you can operate > with success running NetBEUI says that your physical layer is also > solid, i.e., NIC's and Cross-over cable. > > Next thing to do is (for informational purposes) to 'route print' or a > 'netstat -r' at the command line to determine the TCP/IP stack has > proper routing information. Optionally issue the 'nbtstat -c' or > 'nbtstat -r' to see if you are getting any netbios caching... > > After collecting this information, I would remove the TCP/IP protocol, > reboot, reinstall TCP/IP protocol, install most recent SP for OS, and > test again... If that doesn't resolve the problem, then seek out > replacement drivers for the NIC(s). > > This pretty much addresses every possibility of failure between two > Windows-based computers that are directly connected to each other with a > cross-over cable. > > ... One other thought- You wouldn't have some kind of personal firewall > installed/previously installed on either one of these computers by > chance, would you!?!?! > > I have seen all kinds of crazy stuff occur on MS boxes that had had any > of the different flavors of "Personal Firewalls" installed, which > usually required complete removal of the TCP/IP protocol, and then > sifting through the networking portion of the registry to recover the > machine. The alternative was to reinstall the OS from scratch. The > firewalls in question were the Norton Personal Firewall, the Network > Associates Desktop Firewall, BlackIce, and one other I can't recall the > name of. Just some extra info to chew on for possibility. > > Good luck, and let us know what you find... > > -Mark > > > -Original Message- > From: Godswill Oletu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:04 PM > To: Mark W. Odette II; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > Hi Mark, > > I have done all that. The crossover cable is okay. NeTBEUI is working > fine. > I can see both computers through Network Neigbourhood; copy files from > one > computer to the other. Everthing about NetBEUI is kool. I have alos > edited > the hosts/lmhost files on each computer (this only help to resolve the > IP > Address to the netbios name.) > > IP addresses are Computer A=192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0 and Computer > B=192.168.0.2/255.255.255.0 > > On Computer A, I can ping 192.168.0.1, localhost and 127.0.0.1 and it > will > response fine. On Computer B, I can also ping 192.168.0.2, localhost and > 127.0.0.1 and it will response fine. (TCP/IP stack seems perfectly > installed)!!! > > But I cannot ping A from B, neither can I ping B from A. > > This is the dumbest thing I have ever done and it is messing me up. > > Or is it impossible? > > - Original Message - > From: Mark W. Odette II > To: > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 8:22 PM > Subject: RE: I seems Confused.Peer-to-to TCP/IP Network [7:58255] > > > > Check your subnet masks for each computer. > > Either specify Computer B as the default gateway for Computer A and > > vice-versa, or don't specify a default gateway at all. > > > > After that, you have to configure the lmhosts/hosts files if you want > to > > resolve machine names between each other (quickly). > > > > Verify that your cross-over cable is good, or plug each computer into > a > > hub/switch. > > > > It's that simple. > > > > Cheers! > > -Mark > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Godswill
Cisco Tracking Center [7:59386]
For a long time I had not visited the Cisco tracking system. Since the = site was changed, I no longer can find the link to the tracking center = any more. Has anyone been to the tracking center on cisco site since it was = changed? What is the link. Thanks. Godswill Oletu Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59386&t=59386 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533]
Hi, Static routes can either have the AD of 1 or 0 depending on the way you add them to your router. e.g lates RouterA interface FE0=192.168.0.1/27 and it is connected to RouterB FE1=192.168.0.2/27 & FE3=10.1.0.1/24. To define route to 10.1.0.1/24 on RouterA you have two methods. 1. RouterA# IP route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.2 (AD=1) 2. RouterA#IP route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 FE0 (AD=0) If both commands are entered option 2 will be the prefered route. So you are correct, choose the one you prefer, it also depends whether you want to do load balancing, floating static route, etc... Regards. Godswill Oletu - Original Message - From: Munit Singla To: Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:44 AM Subject: Strange problem of route table [7:59533] > Hi all, > Can anybody tell me when I add static route to my default network it shows > with Administrative distance of 1,whereas we know that static routes to our > own interface have AD. of zero. > Example > C 10.77.152.128/25 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0 > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 10.77.152.129 > is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0 > > Its showing here with administrative distance of 1 the route with default > gateway of FastEthernet1/0. > Please do clear me where I am wrong > Thanx in advance > Munit Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59561&t=59533 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confreg 0x2132 instead of confreg 0x2142 [7:59549]
Hi, Your problem is the line speed. Register value 0x2132 specifies the line speed. Change it and you will sleep well tonight otherwise, declare no-sleep on yourself... Further reading : http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps233/products_tech_note09186 a00800a65a5.shtml Regards. Godswill - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:41 PM Subject: confreg 0x2132 instead of confreg 0x2142 [7:59549] > I tried to do a password recovery on a 2600 router. I > typed a confreg 0x2132 instead of confreg 0x2142 and > reset the router. After the router reload, I only see > the weird character display on my terminal. How do I > fix ? > > Thanks in advance. > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59571&t=59549 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533]
Hi Munit, Let assume you put both coomands say: 1. IP route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 172.16.0.1 2. IP route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 FE1 since the AD of 1 is 1 and that of 2 is 0, option 2 will be the prefered route for any routing activity to network 172.16.0.1. The route defined by option 1 will be a floating route to the same network, it will not be in your rotuing table. Remember the routing rule, 'Only prefered routes are selected and inserted into the routing table" option one will only show in the routing table if by some means option become unavailable or fails. Try then on your router and see. If you enter both commands on ur router and implement 'Sh ip route' you will only see the route defined by option 2, however if you remove the option 2 command, the route defined by option 1 will surface in your 'sh ip route' I hope this will help you. Regards. Godswill - Original Message ----- From: Munit Singla To: Godswill Oletu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 5:56 PM Subject: Re: Strange problem of route table [7:59533] Hi Godswill, Thanx for reply.I agree with u,but Still the doubt persists if both the commands are used then both entries come to the route table.As per your and mine theory also only better administrative distance should come into the route table,but here both are introduced into the route table ,as it seems it has administrative distance of 1 for default gateway of its own interface(obviosly zero is preffered then one)? Why both entries in route table. As confusion is creating from different answers so please reply ,so that all confusions are over. Regards, Munit Godswill Oletu wrote: Hi, Static routes can either have the AD of 1 or 0 depending on the way you add them to your router. e.g lates RouterA interface FE0=192.168.0.1/27 and it is connected to RouterB FE1=192.168.0.2/27 & FE3=10.1.0.1/24. To define route to 10.1.0.1/24 on RouterA you have two methods. 1. RouterA# IP route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.2 (AD=1) 2. RouterA#IP route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 FE0 (AD=0) If both commands are entered option 2 will be the prefered route. So you are correct, choose the one you prefer, it also depends whether you want to do load balancing, floating static route, etc... Regards. Godswill Oletu - Original Message - From: Munit Singla To: Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:44 AM Subject: Strange problem of route table [7:59533] > Hi all, > Can anybody tell me when I add static route to my default network it shows > with Administrative distance of 1,whereas we know that static routes to our > own interface have AD. of zero. > Example > C 10.77.152.128/25 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0 > S* 0.0.0.0/0 [1/0] via 10.77.152.129 > is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0 > > Its showing here with administrative distance of 1 the route with default > gateway of FastEthernet1/0. > Please do clear me where I am wrong > Thanx in advance > Munit Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59573&t=59533 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CSIDS - 9E0-100 [7:60920]
I completed the CSS1 last year and will be going for the SAFE before the expiration in September. I will want to take the SAFE exam as close as possible to the expiration. My advice is, since you have come so close, please go ahead and complete your S! then the SAFE exam. Agreed your current job does not require those skills. However, that give you more confidence for new openings in that field, moreso of what use will it be to you after going this far and for failure to move ahead, Cisco render your CSS1 null and void. It then means, in time to come, if you pick up the interest in the Cisco Security track, you will have to start from beginning all over again. my 2 cents. Regards. Godswill - Original Message - From: "Hanna, Keith" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:26 AM Subject: RE: CSIDS - 9E0-100 [7:60920] > Thinking about it at the minute. > I completed CSS1 the same week Cisco announced the CCSP, so I only need to > take the SAFE exam, but I'm not sure yet if I'll bother. > My current position doesn't deal as much with security as I'd like > (corporate team to do that), and if I changed positions/company, I suppose > it would depend on what I was doing in the new one. > > I am tempted to 'just do it', but I tend not to be very motivated when > there's no reward > > KEith > > -Original Message- > From: Kim Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 14 January 2003 10:38 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: CSIDS - 9E0-100 [7:60920] > > > Maybe I should have asked if anyone is studying for the CCSP? What exams > have you accomplished and what is your next step? I may be amungst the > group of first participants in this set of exams (v3) and others are waiting > to get information concerning the exams before attempting. *grins* > > Kim / Zukee Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61115&t=60920 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cisco Safe Security Exam -->9E0-131 CSI or 642-541 CSI [7:73795]
Hi, I will appreciate comments from anyone who have recently written the Cisco SAFE exam. Since the 9E0-131 will be retired on 9/30/03, am thinking of taking the 642-541 exam. All I have is the 7 safe white papers. However, I think its only one of the white papers that deals with the exam topics, I will need inputs from people who are studying for the exam or had written the exam already. Do one need to read all 7 white papers? Comments about the relevancy of the white papers to the exam would be appreciated as well. I have put off this exam till this last minute, one have started studying for this exam, especially since one have just less than 2 months to upgrade from CSS1 to CCSP else one will loss his CSS1 designation. Thanks. Godswill Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73795&t=73795 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
