OT: The end of Token Ring etc [7:46497]
It's just occured to me that with that one announcement Cisco has made all the Token Ring stuff sold on Ebay, for various home labs, worthless.and saved me a pretty penny. Mike Graham CCNP, CCDP Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=46497&t=46497 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: out of band & in band [7:46530]
Think of how much it would cost to upgrade all the Class4/5 switches in America. Mike Graham CCNp, CCDP - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 7:55 AM Subject: Re: out of band & in band [7:46530] > I guess my question is why didn't we upgrade then. Don't you think the > E-1 is better? With the same line you get 7 extra B channels. > Hu...maybe the French made this and it is all political! > > Theo > > > > > > > > Question: Does anyone know why the Americans didn't use the > > E-1? I have > > always wondered about this. > > > > The T1 was originally developed by ATT in 1957 or 58. It was later > adopted > by ANSI. > The CCITT (Now ITU) standardized the CEPT E1 for most of the world at (I > believe) a later date. > > I'd guess you could say that we didn't use it, because we already had a > standard that was in use. > I'm sure corrections will follow if this is wrong. > > Good Luck! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=46558&t=46530 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: out of band & in band [7:46530]
I THINK, it's because the Americans brought the Technology out first (when it was new), the Europeans waited a while until it had matured and advanced. Japan followed the Americans straight away and the rest of the world came along at the end and followed the newer technology brought out by the Europeans. I think if I recal that's how it went. Mike Graham CCNP, CCDP - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:26 AM Subject: Re: out of band & in band [7:46530] > Correct. > > And the US T-1 uses 23 B in band and the Europeans use 30 B in band. Both > use one D 64k out of band. > > Question: Does anyone know why the Americans didn't use the E-1? I have > always wondered about this. > > Theo > > > > > > > "Kris Keen" > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 06/14/2002 11:30 AM > Please respond to "Kris Keen" > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > Subject:out of band & in band [7:46530] > > > Can someone clarify the terms above? > > D Channel uses Out of Band Signaling, the B Channel uses In Band > signaling? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=46557&t=46530 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cryptography and frame-relay [7:46621]
Believe it or not, there is equipment that can pick up tempest signals, up to 200 metres away. So it would all depend on the type of information. If you strongly believe the information is paramount to national security or something then I would suggest building a faraday cage around you establishment for starters, then going on to make sure phone lines are not placed within 2 meters of data cables, etc. The bottom line is if someone wants the information bad enough, they will get it, for the attacker it comes down to "is it worth the effort getting that information". The question, for you, is how hard are you going to make it for them to get that information? I agree with Bill Perch, in that, the person wanting the information has to have found out in the first place that there is information to get. This means that security procedures prior to the transmission of the information have either been breeched or are lax. So the first thing to do is tighten up on the physical and procedural security. Just my 2 pennys worth Mike Graham - Original Message - From: "William Pearch" To: Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 4:02 AM Subject: RE: Cryptography and frame-relay [7:46621] > For the medical traffic that we are throwing over frame, hospitals are > choosing to IPSec encrypt more and more. Is it necessary? I think it > will be due to HIPPA, but that may or may not play out long run. Will > it protect your data? Only from people that have the ability to > intercept C-band satalite or tap fiber and don't want to walk into the > doctors office and just photocopy your records... :) Remember, End to > End security doesn't stop at the routers. > If your physical security measures are lax, and your security processes > are non-existant, you are wasting your time in securing the transport > between locations. Pick off the low hanging fruit first. > > TTFN, > Bill > > > -Original Message- > From: Paulo Roque [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 11:23 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Cryptography and frame-relay [7:46621] > > > Hi All, > > Is necessary to encrypt the comunication that goes over frame-relay > links or the frame-relay virtual circuits (PVC/SVC) mechanisms are > secure enough to protect my data? > > Thanks > > > -- > Eng. Paulo Roque > Network Engineer > Cisco Certified Network Associate > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [GroupStudy.com removed an attachment of type application/x-pkcs7-signature > which had a name of smime.p7s] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=46681&t=46621 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
