cisco just told me that [7:66767]
there are 100 questions on the new r s written...pass mark is 70 % fluctuates based on statistics Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Enterprise Core Network Verizon Wireless 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=66767t=66767 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New CCIE revised exam preparation [7:66706]
so it went from 150 questions/3 hrs to 100 questions/2 hours on march 28th? the cisco page does indicate the reduction from 3 to 2 hrs but no mention of the # of questions -Original Message- From: Jvrg Buesink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New CCIE revised exam preparation [7:66706] Hi there, Currently I'm studing for the new revised 100 question CCIE RS written exam. Currently I use the book CCIE Routing and Switching exam cert guide bt A. Bruno. I think this book is fine for CCNP, but not for a CCIE written test. I would like to buy other material, what are your suggestions? With kind regard, Jorg. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=66709t=66706 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Question about the Revised RS CCIE Written Exam [7:66715]
do you know what the pass mark is? -Original Message- From: Karsten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Question about the Revised RS CCIE Written Exam [7:66715] A ccie at Boson told me it was 120. -Karsten On Wednesday 02 April 2003 02:07 pm, Zahid Hassan wrote: Dear All, Could someone please confirm about the number of questions in the new RS written exam after March 28 2003 as it is not mentioned on CCIE information page. Thanks in advance. Regards, Zahid Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=66725t=66715 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New 2 hour CCIE Written Exam [7:66563]
i'm scheduled for the written on 4/11 i took the new one in november, which was 3 hrs 300 questions...so now it changed again, that's news to me -Original Message- From: Stepp Harless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New 2 hour CCIE Written Exam [7:66563] Has anyone taken the new 2 hour exam yet? I understand that it has changed from 3 hours to two hours. I just changed on the 28th but I thought maybe somebody took the test over the weekend. I wanted to know how many questions are on the new exam. The old one was 150 and I believe someone stated earlier that they received an e-mail from Cisco stating that the number of questions was also decreasing to 100 instead of 150. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=66569t=66563 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
can one someone pls recommend [7:64380]
a hands-on lab training course for the ccie lab exam...i want to prepare myself for my 6th attempt...i believe there was ecp course but i don't have the details...thx in advance Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Enterprise Core Network Verizon Wireless 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=64380t=64380 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is there anyone migrating isdn backup to dsl backup [7:58558]
we are looking to migrate isdn backup at our retail stores to dsl...is there anyone that has performed this already? Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=58558t=58558 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: is there anyone migrating isdn backup to dsl backup [7:58580]
thx for the heads up...we are researching dsl as a backup solution...we have 1500 sites on isdn backup we have tons of isdn telco issues -Original Message- From: The Long and Winding Road [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 12:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: is there anyone migrating isdn backup to dsl backup [7:58568] Mirza, Timur wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... we are looking to migrate isdn backup at our retail stores to dsl...is there anyone that has performed this already? CL: having done a number of data networks that were DSL based ( but none migrating ISDN to DSL ) I can offer this consideration: if a DSL link goes down for whatever reason, it may take more than a couple of days for your telco to get it back up and working. You will want to have some solid service level agreements in place. DSL on the whole is extremely reliable. The problem tends to be during those rare instances when it is down for whatever reason, some telcos seem to have DSL repair low on their priority list. CL: other than that caviat, why not? Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=58580t=58580 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ccie is a rip off! [7:58458]
btw, to add what [EMAIL PROTECTED] said, the bruno text is practically irrelevant when it comes to the written -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Ccie is a rip off! [7:58458] Someone should say this already : There is no experties-checking in any ccie written exam! The ccie is a rip-off! 50% memory questions (like what vip version is eprom-value:01e00 and other shit.. I got the official exam certification guide I am a ccip/ccdp/ccnp and I never got so miss-leaded! this book from july 2002 (very new) and it says (page 4) the exam is 100 question + does not include the fddi and many more ... it is missleading in many areas + the question and cd-test is 80% less hard then the actual test and it tells you that they are harder! i payed the price for getting the book for an idea of the test and i got the wrong idea! i think that cisco is doing something very wrong with this The material are quite broad and you can ask many hard questions on the technologies But there are so many of them about how many slots in this..?,what version support that..?,what ip precedence number is flush.. that gets you thinking cisco is not Concern about checking your experties but something complitly different - that gets people like us talking about the exams like it is something to brag about! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=58470t=58458 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RE: CCIE written [7:58400]
i can attest to that...i passed w/o a prob 3 yrs ago failed on the new written...its a night day difference...when they lower the pass mark from 70% to 58%, it should make you think! -Original Message- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: CCIE written [7:58400] B.J. Wilson wrote: I would think that this would be a bad thing, for two reasons: one, the number of people who put CCIE Written on their resumes will increase, and the availability of lab dates will decrease. I don't think the lower passing score means more people pass. The test is harder than it used to be. US$0.02, BJ ---Original Message--- From: Bernard Sent: 12/03/02 11:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: CCIE written [7:58400] Cisco is using a sliding scale based on overall failure rate of the exam. As of 10/19, you needed a 58% to pass, not the 70% . The required % to pass will change over time, again based on failure rate. This exam is much more doable now. It is not as scary as it used to be at 70%. Isn't your logic backwards if you say that the exam is more doable and less scary now? To maintain the same ratio of passing people versus non-passing people, they reduced the passing score because the exam is harder to pass than it used to be. At least that is what I would assume, or am I confused? Priscilla Bernard -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CCIE written [7:58400] From my experience the passing score were 70% Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=58484t=58400 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bandwidth vs. latency [7:57899]
does anyone have a good reference (e.g., white paper) on the nature of bandwidth vs latency the distinction bet/ the two? Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=57899t=57899 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Fw: New CCIE Written Exam [7:57341]
anyone studying for the ccie written should not depend on the anthony bruno text...it is totally irrelevant...i know from experience...are there any other study guides out there for the new ccie written? -Original Message- From: Clark, John [mailto:John.Clark;expanets.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re: Fw: New CCIE Written Exam [7:57341] maybe.. but I too would like to know exactly how much focus the exam has on Token Ring and bridging (srb, rsrt, rsrb) and atm.. I do not think that violates the nda... now if you gave an example of a question - that would probably violate the nda. -Original Message- From: B.J. Wilson [mailto:analogkid01;mindspring.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 8:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Fw: New CCIE Written Exam [7:57341] Am I the only one who gets the funny feeling that such questions violate the NDA? BJ ---Original Message--- From: Sent: 11/14/02 08:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fw: New CCIE Written Exam [7:57341] xxx, How about Token Ring and IPX. Is there as much emphasis on the RIF and etc as there used to be. Also- how much VoIP and MPLS should we know. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=57450t=57341 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CCIE Routing $ Switching ( Written) [7:56894]
btw, the bruno text is pretty irrelevant for some versions of the written exam, esp. the one i took a couple of wks ago -Original Message- From: Kaminski, Shawn G [mailto:shawn.kaminski;eds.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 1:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: CCIE Routing $ Switching ( Written) [7:56894] Following the Cisco CCIE Written 350-001 Blueprint is always your best bet. You'll notice that much of the material on the blueprint hasn't changed from the old exam, so you still need to know this material. The new stuff on the exam (MPLS, QoS, etc.) is also very important. However, you don't know which questions you will get from the pool. I've talked to numerous people at EDS who said that they had very little MPLS or QoS and that their CCIE Written exam mostly covered the old material. Others have had exams that were loaded with MPLS and QoS. So, you really won't know what topics will be covered heavily on your exam until you take it! You really can't cut corners at this stage of your certification. You need to know it all so you are prepared for your CCIE Lab within 18 months! Shawn K. -Original Message- From: Hixon James [mailto:nobody;groupstudy.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CCIE Routing $ Switching ( Written) [7:56894] I am scheduled to take the written next week. I really have questions concerning MPLS, QoS, MultiCast, VoIP, and IPX. How much preparation into these areas should I spend? Are there any other areas where I should focus more than normal? Any help will be appreciatted, James Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=57080t=56894 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mpls vis a vis the routing switching track [7:49048]
based on the url above, can i understand that after token, igrp token over dlsw will no longer be on the routing switching exam after october, that mpls will NOT become part of the routing switching track, since it has already been classified as part of the communications services track? Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49048t=49048 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mpls vis a vis the routing switching track [7:49048]
i forgot to include the url, here it is: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/certifications/cert.html -Original Message- From: Mirza, Timur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 11:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: mpls vis a vis the routing switching track [7:49048] based on the url above, can i understand that after token, igrp token over dlsw will no longer be on the routing switching exam after october, that mpls will NOT become part of the routing switching track, since it has already been classified as part of the communications services track? Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=49054t=49048 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is quot;ppp auth chap callinquot; configured on [7:48319]
Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=48319t=48319 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
confusion on ppp auth chap callin/ppp auth pap cal [7:48325]
one cisco doc says that the callin keyword is used on incoming or received calls (which to me implies the CALLED router), while on another it lists a config where it is configured on the CALLING router actually, whatever side it's configured on, it works in my lab! still, i'm trying to get a grasp of what's conceptually happening is there a contradiction or am i misunderstanding authentication? Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=48325t=48325 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
here is the ANSWER from CISCO on the dlsw [7:47333]
CISCO'S ANSWER: --- peer-on-demand defaults does not change what we learn from the peer during CapEx. We have learned the default cost value from the remote, which is 3 - and that is what we show in 'sh dls cap'. However, the value configured on peer-on- demand defaults (5) overrides this operationally. So even though the capabilities reported a value of 3, the value that is actually being used is 5. Unfortunately, other than the config there is no show command that shows the operational cost value of the peer. - Scott PROBLEM/ISSUE: -- i have the following config...r5 is the border peer r8 r4 are clients...i configure a default cost of 5 on r5 but when i issue a show dlsw cap on either client, the peer cost stays @ 3...is this a bug or misconfig? r5 (the border peer) dlsw local-peer peer-id 100.100.5.5 group 100 border promiscuous dlsw peer-on-demand-defaults cost 5 #also tried configuring dlsw prom-peer-defaults cost 5 here but it did not work as well - the only thing that works is when i explictly configure the cost on the dlsw local-peer statement (then it shows up on r8 r4 w/ a cost of 2) -- r8 (a border peer client) dlsw local-peer peer-id 100.100.8.8 group 100 dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 100.100.5.5 -- r4 (a border peer client) dlsw local-peer peer-id 100.100.4.4 group 100 dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 100.100.5.5 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47333t=47333 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t/r question: hex vs decimal involving 3920 routers [7:47204]
i don't have a 3920 t/r switch on me, so i have to ask this question: is it accurate to say that 1. the bridge id ring # under the t/r interface on a router is in DECIMAL? 2. the bridge id ring # under the t/r interface on a router is in HEX? therefore, if u want to assign RING 100 to BRIDGE 10 on r1-to0 RING 200 to BRIDGE 14 on r2-to0, u would use these exact numbers on the routers under the t/r interface... ...but on the 3920, u would configure the following (as practice, i just add 1 to the crf) for r1-to0 connected to the 3920: virtual bridge: vlan id: 100 vlan name:brf100 bridge id:A virtual ring: vlan id: 101 vlan name:crf101 ring #: 64 for r2-to0 connected to the 3920: virtual bridge: vlan id: 200 vlan name:brf200 bridge id:E virtual ring: vlan id: 201 vlan name:crf201 ring #: C8 Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47204t=47204 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dlsw peer-on-demand-defaults command (help!) [7:47205]
i have the following config...r5 is the border peer r8 r4 are clients...i configure a default cost of 5 on r5 but when i issue a show dlsw cap on either client, the peer cost stays @ 3...is this a bug or misconfig? r5 (the border peer) dlsw local-peer peer-id 100.100.5.5 group 100 border promiscuous dlsw peer-on-demand-defaults cost 5 #also tried configuring dlsw prom-peer-defaults cost 5 here but it did not work as well - the only thing that works is when i explictly configure the cost on the dlsw local-peer statement (then it shows up on r8 r4 w/ a cost of 2) --- r8 (a border peer client) dlsw local-peer peer-id 100.100.8.8 group 100 dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 100.100.5.5 --- r4 (a border peer client) dlsw local-peer peer-id 100.100.4.4 group 100 dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 100.100.5.5 Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47205t=47205 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t/r question: hex vs decimal involving 3920 routers [7:47148]
i don't have a 3920 t/r switch on me, so i have to ask this question: is it accurate to say that 1. the bridge id ring # under the t/r interface on a router is in DECIMAL? 2. the bridge id ring # under the t/r interface on a router is in HEX? therefore, if u want to assign RING 100 to BRIDGE 10 on r1-to0 RING 200 to BRIDGE 14 on r2-to0, u would use these exact numbers on the routers under the t/r interface... ...but on the 3920, u would configure the following (as practice, i just add 1 to the crf) for r1-to0 connected to the 3920: virtual bridge: vlan id:100 vlan name: brf100 bridge id: A virtual ring: vlan id:101 vlan name: crf101 ring #: 64 for r2-to0 connected to the 3920: virtual bridge: vlan id:200 vlan name: brf200 bridge id: E virtual ring: vlan id:201 vlan name: crf201 ring #: C8 Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=47148t=47148 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dlsw+ bet/ an enet rtr t/r rtr [7:46896]
two questions...thx in advance! 1. is the source-bridge transparent command required on the token ring router when one dlsw peer is ethernet only the other dlsw peer is token ring only (i.e., bet/ r1-e1 r2-to1)? 2. why is the virtual ring (500) required on the ethernet router in the config below? finally, i understand that in the following config, the source-bridge transparent command is required bec/ ethernet token ring is off the same router !ethernet router: source-bridge ring-group 500 dlsw local-peer peer-id 1.1.1.1 dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 2.2.2.2 lf 1500 dlsw bridge-group 5 bridge-group 5 protocol ieee ! int e0 ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 bridge-group 5 !ethernet/token ring router: source-bridge ring-group 500 source-bridge transparent 500 1000 1 5 dlsw local-peer peer-id 2.2.2.2 dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 1.1.1.1 lf 1500 dlsw bridge-group 5 bridge-group 5 protocol ieee ! int e1/2 ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.0 bridge-group 5 ! int to0 ring-speed 16 source-bridge 7 1 500 source-bridge spanning Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=46896t=46896 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
general question on rip/igrp/eigrp over isdn [7:43419]
if u running any one of these three protocols over isdn for backup, is it best to use a floating static or dialer-watch? is it pretty much limited to these two methods (0ther than backup interface command in a non-vc environment) Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=43419t=43419 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: is the following pap callin cfg viable? [7:42475]
the config was compiled based on a DISCUSSION a pdf, no testing 'cause i'm looking for a cheap simulator! -Original Message- From: Erick B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 5:26 PM To: Mirza, Timur; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: is the following pap callin cfg viable? [7:42475] The config is good for the pieces you posted. Is it working or? If it's not, perhaps theres a extra space after one of the passwords. --- Mirza, Timur wrote: PAP Using Different Passwords On Two Different Routers on r1: username r2 password 0 timur ! int BRI0 ppp authentication pap ppp pap sent-username r1 password 0 milton on r2: username r1 password 0 milton ! int BRI0 ppp authentication pap callin ppp pap sent-username r2 password 0 timur !callin keyword on r2 means that r2 will only authenticate r1 if r1 initiated the call Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42561t=42475 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is the following pap callin cfg viable? [7:42475]
PAP Using Different Passwords On Two Different Routers on r1: username r2 password 0 timur ! int BRI0 ppp authentication pap ppp pap sent-username r1 password 0 milton on r2: username r1 password 0 milton ! int BRI0 ppp authentication pap callin ppp pap sent-username r2 password 0 timur !callin keyword on r2 means that r2 will only authenticate r1 if r1 initiated the call Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42475t=42475 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
one more isdn cfg question [7:42476]
i don't have isdn in the lab (still looking for a simulator), so one more validation question...is the following a viable callback cfg?: !calling (client) called router (server) negotiate w/ ppp lcp to determine if client requests a callback or server will initiate a callback !other bri commands omitted for clarity CLIENT: int bri0 ip address 1.1.1.2 255.255.255.252 dialer map ip 1.1.1.1 name SERVER 1949111 ppp callback request SERVER: int bri0 ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.252 dialer callback-secure !disconnect calls that are misconfigured for callback or unconfigured dial-in users dialer map ip 1.1.1.2 name CLIENT class abc 1714222 ppp callback accept ! map-class dialer abc dialer callback-server username !identify return call dial string using authenticated client's username Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42476t=42476 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
where can i get an isdn switch for my home lab? [7:42030]
Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42030t=42030 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
does anyone have an adtran atlas 550 w/ a quad bri module for [7:42032]
Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Planning Engineering, West Region 15505-B Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, California 92618 Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42032t=42032 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: What's it worth... [7:27400]
i second third that...ccie boot camps are a waste of time -Original Message- From: Steve Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 10:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: What's it worth... [7:27400] DOWN WITH BOOT CAMPS : -Original Message- From: William Gragido [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 10:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: What's it worth... [7:27400] Thats so truethere has been a real dis-service done to many of the certs and in truth, many of the training centers are responsible for this. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: What's it worth... [7:27400] I'll agree with that last statement. It used to be CCIE ment you knew your stuff and if all hell broke loose you could hang with the smoke. People are getting their CCIE in an attempt to get big bucks. I always here I need to get my CCIE and/or my MCSE to get into the computer feild. That's what happened to the CNE. People studied their little brains out, past the test but when the server crashed they had no experience to get it back up because as we all know there is a HUGE difference between the controlled lab and a real WAN. This made employers think why should I hire one of these guys if they can not even do what they are certified to do. The same thing happened to the MCSE which is one supposed reason MS has made it a hell of a lot harder to pass. My 2 cents, Steve -Original Message- From: Matthew Crane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: What's it worth... [7:27400] to be a certified Cisco engineer ? Answer these days appears to be 'not a lot' I have been with 3 clients today who are all trying to recruit CCNP or CCIE staff and they had asked for help in the interview process. The followign is just one example of an interview, but it goes for all 3 and more. All goes well until the first CCIE candidate asks about money and was told its 60K (UK Sterling) no frills no overtime, maybe a car, but you only work at one site. This to work in London, where CCIE used to command 100K+ So I did some checking with some friends who work as recruitment consultants and yes 60-70K is topline now for a CCIE, and 30K for CCNP with 5 years experience, its a lot less without experience IF you get a job. The reasons behind this a. Recession - so everyone will run for cover and take a permanent job. b. CCIE's are plentiful and therefore cheap and CCNP's are even worse off Now this is the view from the employer(s). I can print here what the Cisco account manager(s) said to me afterwards as we talked on the train home, but they and some of their associates are taking the message back, 'we have got it wrong' in trying to turen out CCIE's too quickly. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=27498t=27400 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
critical issue on 6509 redundancy (second email - IGNORE the [7:27054]
hi heather, we are grappling w/ an issue regarding the 6509s that will comprise the interwan... is not entirely clear on the following issue: are the msfcs operationally independent OR can one msfc backup the other msfc? our requirement is that our dual supervisor 6509 has ONE router, w/ one msfc functional at a given time that they be IDENTICAL (this would be analagous to the 75xx environment where we have dual rsp4s, where one backs up the other)...we have not been able to test anything yet except for reloading msfcs...this particular 6509 is running 12.1(4)e1 it accepts identical ip address(es) using the alt ip but brian smith configured a 6509 w/ dual msfcs using 12.1(8) it does NOT accept an identical alternate ip address (which leads one to believe that a dual sup, dual msfc can only function as two INDEPENDENT routers) here is some sho output from the supervisor msfc, followed by the config for our 6509 @ irvine: cairvndts sh sys high Highavailability: enabled Highavailability versioning: disabled Highavailability Operational-status: ON cairvndtrsh red Designated Router: 1 Non-designated Router: 2 Redundancy Status: designated Config Sync AdminStatus : enabled Config Sync RuntimeStatus: enabled -- -- --- hostname cairvndtr (msfc) Current configuration : 2171 bytes ! version 12.1 service timestamps debug uptime service timestamps log uptime service password-encryption ! hostname cairvndtr ! boot system flash bootflash:c6msfc2-jsv-mz.121-4.E1 enable password 7 070C285F4D06 ! ip subnet-zero no ip domain-lookup ! redundancy high-availability config-sync cns event-service server ! ! ! interface Loopback0 ip address 10.254.254.1 255.255.255.252 alt ip address 10.254.254.1 255.255.255.252 no ip redirects no ip unreachables ! interface ATM4/0/0 description OC-3 #1 link to uscaidcatm - 2c4 OR MGX no ip address atm pvc 1 0 5 qsaal atm pvc 2 0 16 ilmi no atm ilmi-keepalive ! interface ATM4/0/0.850 point-to-point description IBGP link to ohdblndtr - a4/0/0.1050 ip address 10.254.250.9 255.255.255.252 ip route-cache same-interface pvc 8/50 protocol ip 10.254.250.10 broadcast ! ! interface ATM5/0/0 description OC-3 #2 link to uscaidcatm - 1b4 OR MGX no ip address atm pvc 1 0 5 qsaal atm pvc 2 0 16 ilmi no atm ilmi-keepalive ! interface ATM5/0/0.650 point-to-point description IBGP link to nyorbgdtr - a5/0/0.1050 ip address 10.254.250.1 255.255.255.252 ip route-cache same-interface pvc 6/50 protocol ip 10.254.250.2 broadcast ! ! interface Vlan254 description eBGP GE link to cairvindcr - port TBD ip address 10.254.251.1 255.255.255.252 alt ip address 10.254.251.1 255.255.255.252 ! router ospf 1 log-adjacency-changes network 10.254.250.0 0.0.0.3 area 0 network 10.254.250.8 0.0.0.3 area 0 network 10.254.251.0 0.0.0.3 area 0 network 10.254.254.0 0.0.0.3 area 0 ! router bgp 65000 bgp log-neighbor-changes neighbor 10.254.254.5 remote-as 65000 neighbor 10.254.254.5 update-source Loopback0 neighbor 10.254.254.5 soft-reconfiguration inbound neighbor 10.254.254.9 remote-as 65000 neighbor 10.254.254.9 update-source Loopback0 neighbor 10.254.254.9 soft-reconfiguration inbound ! ip classless no ip http server ! ! ! line con 0 transport input none line vty 0 4 exec-timeout 0 0 password 7 094F471A1A0A login length 0 transport input lat pad mop telnet rlogin udptn nasi line vty 5 15 password 7 14141B180F0B login transport input lat pad mop telnet rlogin udptn nasi ! end hostname cairvndts (supervisor engine) # * NON-DEFAULT CONFIGURATION * ! ! #time: Wed Oct 31 2001, 16:31:18 PST ! #version 6.1(1d) ! set password $2$MNDC$Sljq9eU1aFjRG0ymtvppi0 set enablepass $2$ZAXN$pzTXlahznEDjRDM1lUwiD1 set prompt cairvndts set banner motd ^C This is the future InterWAN 2.0 Core Router based in sunny Southern California!^C ! #errordetection set errordetection portcounter enable ! #system set system highavailability enable ! #! #vtp set vtp domain irvine-interwan set vtp mode transparent set vlan 1 name default type ethernet mtu 1500 said 11 state active set vlan 254 name eBGP-10.254.251.0/30 type ethernet mtu 1500 said 100254 state active set vlan 1002 name fddi-default type fddi mtu 1500 said 101002 state active set vlan 1004 name fddinet-default type fddinet mtu 1500 said 101004 state active stp ieee set vlan 1005 name trnet-default type trbrf mtu 1500 said 101005 state active stp ibm set vlan 1003 name token-ring-default type trcrf mtu 1500 said 101003 state active mode srb aremaxhop 7 stemaxhop 7 backupcrf off ! #ntp set timezone PST -8 0 ! #set boot command set boot
RE: Passed CCIE Written, life is good [7:26584]
do u have to recertify on the written after 3 yrs? i passed the written in 1/2000 since then, i've attempted the lab 4x...i'm going to attempt the lab as many times as i can before the written recertification (in 1/2003), after that, sad to say but i'm planning to give up...it just ain't worth it -Original Message- From: Logan, Harold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Passed CCIE Written, life is good [7:26584] My logic has always been, if someone can afford to take any cert exam 8 times, and doesn't mind losing the money, then odds are they're financially well-off enough that they can just retire now and get it over with. Now that the written costs $300 US, taking the written 8 times would cost $2400, and taking the lab eight times would cost over 9 grand. That's a lot of beer money to go donating to Cisco... Hal Logan Network Specialist / Adjunct Faculty Computing and Engineering Technology Manatee Community College -Original Message- From: Bullock, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Passed CCIE Written, life is good [7:26584] True, the written exam is tough, but really all about understanding rif and dlsw technologies. From there it comes down to memorizing the questions and taking the test a few times. I know guys that took that thing over 8 times in a row, just to pass it. I just got lucky and happened to pass it on the first time. Been a few months, and still have not scheduled the daunting lab though. jason -Original Message- From: Logan, Harold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Passed CCIE Written, life is good [7:26584] I would rate the IE written as much more difficult than the CCNP Exams, and slightly more difficult than the CID exam. Hal Logan Network Specialist / Adjunct Faculty Computing and Engineering Technology Manatee Community College -Original Message- From: Henk Wolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 8:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Passed CCIE Written, life is good [7:26584] Tnx for the feedback. Did you do CCNP / CCDP as well? If so how do these exams compare to the Written CCIE? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=26889t=26584 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i can view syn acks acks, but not the syn [7:26404]
to the host? is there something wrong w/my acl? telnet client - 151.144.210.29 telnet host - 192.168.1.254 (this is the debugging router) access-list 100 permit tcp host 151.144.210.29 host 192.168.1.254 access-list 100 permit tcp host 192.168.1.254 host 151.144.210.29 ! r6_t/s@timur's#sh access-l 100 Extended IP access list 100 permit tcp host 151.144.210.29 host 192.168.1.254 (76 matches) permit tcp host 192.168.1.254 host 151.144.210.29 (48 matches) ! r6_t/s@timur's#deb ip pack 100 det IP packet debugging is on (detailed) for access list 100 01:29:22: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 44, sending 01:29:22: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072690952, ack=4077085970, win=4128 ACK SYN 01:29:22: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 52, sending 01:29:22: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072690953, ack=4077085970, win=4128 ACK PSH 01:29:22: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 596, sending 01:29:22: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072690965, ack=4077085982, win=4116 ACK 01:29:22: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 148, sending 01:29:22: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691521, ack=4077085982, win=4116 ACK PSH 01:29:22: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 43, sending 01:29:22: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691629, ack=4077085982, win=4116 ACK PSH 01:29:22: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 46, sending 01:29:22: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691632, ack=4077085994, win=4104 ACK PSH 01:29:23: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 40, sending 01:29:23: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691638, ack=4077086005, win=4093 ACK 01:29:23: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 41, sending 01:29:23: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691638, ack=4077086006, win=4092 ACK PSH 01:29:23: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 41, sending 01:29:23: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691639, ack=4077086007, win=4091 ACK PSH 01:29:23: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 41, sending 01:29:23: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691640, ack=4077086008, win=4090 ACK PSH 01:29:23: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 41, sending 01:29:23: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691641, ack=4077086009, win=4089 ACK PSH 01:29:24: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 41, sending 01:29:24: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691642, ack=4077086010, win=4088 ACK PSH 01:29:24: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 52, sending 01:29:24: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691643, ack=4077086012, win=4086 ACK PSH 01:29:26: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 40, sending 01:29:26: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691655, ack=4077086013, win=4085 ACK 01:29:27: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 40, sending 01:29:27: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691655, ack=4077086014, win=4084 ACK 01:29:27: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 40, sending 01:29:27: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691655, ack=4077086015, win=4083 ACK 01:29:27: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 40, sending 01:29:27: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691655, ack=4077086016, win=4082 ACK 01:29:28: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 40, sending 01:29:28: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691655, ack=4077086019, win=4079 ACK 01:29:28: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 40, sending 01:29:28: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691655, ack=4077086021, win=4077 ACK 01:29:28: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 57, sending 01:29:28: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691655, ack=4077086023, win=4075 ACK PSH 01:29:29: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 41, sending 01:29:29: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691672, ack=4077086024, win=4074 ACK PSH 01:29:29: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 41, sending 01:29:29: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691673, ack=4077086025, win=4073 ACK PSH 01:29:29: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 42, sending 01:29:29: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691674, ack=4077086027, win=4071 ACK PSH 01:29:29: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 40, sending 01:29:29: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691676, ack=4077086027, win=4071 ACK PSH FIN 01:29:30: IP: s=192.168.1.254 (local), d=151.144.210.29 (Ethernet0), len 40, sending 01:29:30: TCP src=23, dst=24934, seq=2072691677, ack=4077086028, win=4071 ACK Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Transition Group Irvine, California Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at:
2 questions (nat tcp 3-way handshake) [7:26305]
* if u r doing nat outside to inside, is it normal behavior to get two different nat addresses for the same source (in this case, 10.14.13.136)? i know its going to 2 different destinations but shouldn't the source get the same address? ohdblndxnet-drsh ip nat tr ve Pro Inside global Inside local Outside local Outside global --- 151.144.200.14151.144.200.1410.250.250.123 10.14.13.136 create 03:07:37, use 00:00:24, left 00:59:35, flags: outside --- 151.144.200.15151.144.200.1510.250.250.50 10.14.13.136 create 01:25:59, use 00:31:07, left 00:28:52, flags: outside * is there a debugging tool that will allow me to view the tcp 3-way handshake? i know u can create an acl debug it to view packets but can u see the syn, syn ack ack packets? Timur Mirza Principal Network Engineer Network Transition Group Irvine, California Verizon Wireless 949.286.6623 (o) 949.697.7964 (c) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=26305t=26305 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
