Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
> >Man, > > > >I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer. I have, many times. For example, just check out the archives at groupstudy.jobs. > >Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you think >the value of CCIE title has drop. Huh? I didn't ask anything. What are you talking about? > >I think is fair to say, after you finished it than you will know what it >take. Believe me, I know what it takes. See below. > >Please take the CCIE lab exam before you make any common on this subject. You are assuming that I have never taken the lab. What if I told you I have. So now, according to your rules, I now have the right to say anything I want, right? > >Of course the # mean a lot but the learning process was even more >important. >In fact, one consultant company just hires two new CCIE recently with 140K >salaries per year. They both study at the same school that I went. And by the same token check out all the CCIE's who haven't found a a job for a very long time. Don't believe me? Again, go to groupstudy.jobs. Or alt.certification.cisco. Or forums.cisco.com. Or any other place where CCIE's tend to congregate and you can read the stories of CCIE's desperate to find work. > > > >This studygroup is a very valuable resource to us and everybody is working >really hard to his or her dream. I will suggest that if you are scare about >the increasing number of CCIE, please leave and seeking another valuable >certification for yourself. I'm not scared about anything. I would ask whether you're scared that perhaps your high-number CCIE may not be particularly valuable. But is that my fault? Did I cause the high-number to be less valuable? I'm just saying that it is less valuable, but I did not make that happen. You don't like what I'm saying, take it up with the entity that is responsible - take it up with Cisco itself. Ask Cisco why they changed the test from 2 days to 1. Ask Cisco why they let braindumps proliferate. Ask Cisco why they got rid of the troubleshooting section of the test. Ask Cisco why they just let people come back every month and take the test over and over again until they finally pass. All these things hurt the integrity of the program. But none of them are my fault - they're Cisco's fault. Look, the facts are clear. The CCIE has declined in quality. This is why you have some recruiters giving preference to low-number CCIE's. But nobody is giving preference to high-number CCIE's. Why is that? Ask yourself why is it only "one-way"? It is inescapably because of the drop in quality of the program. But now ask yourself whose fault is that? It's certainly not my fault - I'm not responsible for keeping the quality of the program high. It's Cisco's fault. > > > >Just my 2-cent. > > >- Original Message - >From: "n rf" >To: >Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 5:16 PM >Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] > > > > Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn't > > accelerated THAT dramatically. > > > > Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less > > rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to > > greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the average > > quality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than >the > > average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. > > > > Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself >if > > you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number, > > would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could >trade > > that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. > > I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also >know > > that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher >one. > > The movement is therefore all "one-way". If all CCIE's were really >"created > > equal" then nobody would really care one way or another which number >they > > had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not >created > > equal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and >the > > higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a >lower > > number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the >past, > > which is why lower numbers are preferred. > > > > Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000 > > Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky > > technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other >god-awful > > number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the >"new" > > CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. >Eventually, > > numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want >to > > trade in their number for one greater tha
Re: Is there any router that can be the network-side of BRI? [7:4475]
Exactly. You just hit it right on the head. I want to do BRI without having to buy an ISDN simulator, or pay for ISDN lines. ""Jason Roysdon"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > What exactly are you looking to do? Connect two BRIs in a lab? You want an > ISDN Simulator to do that. Otherwise, you want to know someone at a local > telco to get you access to their switch ;-p > > Actually, I bet I could pull it off with one of our local telcos that I do > networking work for (they're the telco for a few towns with wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Yeah, that's pretty good. Is there also something that can handle the > > network side of BRI for data? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Javier Contreras"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Hi > > > > > > Network side BRI have different L1 framing. You can do it with 3600, > > > 3810 > > > or 2600, but you need a special VIC card, see here: > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/3600/prodlit/c36p_ds.htm > > > Take care, this is for "voice" connections not for data. > > > > > > Regards! > > > > > > RF wrote: > > > > > > > > Does anybody know of any router or router module/blade that can act as > > the > > > > network (telco) side of ISDN BRI? I know that in the latest IOS, you > > can > > > do > > > > "isdn protocol-emulate network" for PRI, but what about BRI? > > > > > > > > Thanx > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > > --- > > > Javier Contreras Albesa > > > Professional Trainer > > > > > > PRO IN Training S.L. > > > PROfessional Information Networks > > > World Trade Center, Moll de Barcelona S/N > > > Edif Sur, Planta 4 > > > > > > Phone: (+34) 93-5088850 E-mail: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Fax: (+34) 93-5088860 Internet: http://www.proin.com > > > > > > SHAPING THE FUTURE - BE PART OF IT! > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4475&t=4475 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How helpful is CEF in a non-ISP-type environment? [7:4713]
I was wondering if anybody has ever been able to compare the performance of routers doing CEF switching vs. fast switching (or one of its variants like optimum switching) in an environment where routes change rarely (like an enterprise, not an ISP, as I think we all agree that CEF is very useful in a highly dynamic environment like an ISP). Yes, I am well aware of CEF's advantages, like that you can quickly switch all packets of a flow without having to process-switch the first packet, that there is greater intelligence in CEF as regards to subnet masks, and that you can do more kinds of load-balancing. All very useful in an ISP environment, I'm sure. But I have also heard that the CEF implementation still has some bugs, particularly in the lower line of routers like the 2600. So my question is, in an enterprise environment where there are maybe only 10's or 100's of routes, and those routes rarely change anyway, how much better is CEF really compared to, say, fast-switching. If your routers are CEF-able, should you always have it on, no matter how small your network is? If not, how large would you say a network has to be before CEF becomes viable? Naturally, there is no hard and fast rule. I am just looking for a general synopsis of what people think. Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4713&t=4713 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anybody seen a live production network of Apollo, XNS, CLNS, [7:4716]
Has anybody here ever actually worked on (or even seen) a live and functioning Apollo, XNS, CLNS, and/or VINES network lately (like in the last year or so)? I'm not talking about some experimental lab, but a bona-fide network that is doing something useful for some organization somewhere. I am sure they are still out there somewhere, and I'm trying to get an idea of who might still be running these kinds of systems (some government organizations probably). Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4716&t=4716 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can l2tp really be used in a non-IP environment? [7:4719]
It has been claimed that there are several advantages that L2TP has over PPTP and L2F. In particular, one of the supposed advantages is that whereas PPTP and L2F can only be used in an IP environment, L2TP can be used in non-IP networks. Cisco doc's make reference to this advantage, and I take it that this is a reason why Cisco (and Microsoft, who is a L2TP cofounder) is pushing it over the other 2 technologies. Yet, when looking at the Cisco L2TP commands, I fail to see any way to do L2TP without invoking IP. Like when I use the "initiate-to" key-word, the only choice I'm given is IP addresses. So, how anybody ever gotten L2TP to work without IP? Or does Cisco plan to add this support in the future (which is odd, because I thought non-IP support was supposed to be one of the advantages of L2TP, and it's not even supported). Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4719&t=4719 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anybody use weird dialup technologies ARAP, NASI, V.120 sw56? [7:4783]
A followup to my previous question on Apollo/CLNS/VINES/XNs Has anybody worked on or even seen a network lately (in the past year) that uses old dial-up technologies like ARAP, NASI, V.120, and/or switched 56? If so, where have you seen them? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4783&t=4783 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has anybody seen IS-IS used anywhere but ISP's? [7:4784]
Other than in ISP's, has anybody seen IS-IS in use in a real production network? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4784&t=4784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Has anybody seen IS-IS used anywhere but ISP's? [7:4784]
Damn, I forgot about that whole Decnet thing. That's right, that's right, Decnet implements Is-Is for PhaseV migration. I have even worked on a network like that, how foolish of me to forget. So I guess I should have narrowed my question. What I should have said is, has anybody seen Integrated IS-IS (for IP routing only) being used in a real working network other than an ISP? ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >Other than in ISP's, has anybody seen IS-IS in use in a real production > >network? > > > A subset is used for SONET managment in telcos. I have also seen it > used in some conversions from DECnet Phase IV to Phase V (which is > OSI) in order to get dual OSI and IP routing. > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4796&t=4784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
can I have 2 multilink-PPP bundles? [7:4827]
Hi all: Consider this situation. Let's say I have a router (call it router A) with 4 serial interfaces, each connected to a T1 line. This router is connected to 2 other routers by these serial interfaces, such that S0 and S1 are connected to router B, and S2 and S3 are connected to router C. So on router A I want to be able to create 2 multilink PPP bundles of 2 serial interfaces each. Can I do this? Note, I do not want all interfaces in 1 bundle, I want 2 entirely different bundles. Also, there is no dialing going on anywhere, so I do not think you can use any Dialer interfaces (I tried with both dialer pools and rotary groups, and got nowhere, as if I don't add a dialer string, then debug's complain about no dialer string, and then when I do add a bogus dialer string, the serial interface still refuses to bind to the dialer interface). If this is possible, what are the commands? Yes, I've thought about using virtual-templates. But then, I don't see any command (in 12.0) to link a particular bundle with a particular virtual-template. And I've already explored the Dialer commands, to no avail. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4827&t=4827 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ISIS vs. OSPF, redux [7:4945]
Hello all: Thank you for everybody who answered my previous IS-IS question. I have been compiling a preliminary list on the advantages and disadvantages of IS-IS vs. OSPF, and where you might want to use one over the other. This is what I have come up with IS-IS: - has a foothold in ISP's for historical reasons, as it was developed earlier than OSPF. Therefore, for backwards compatibility, ISP's continue to demand routers that can do IS-IS - also is used for out-of-band SDH management by telcos - Converges slightly faster than OSPF - (Naturally) is multiprotocol, so can handle CLNS, and Decnet phase V (which is CLNS) - Has some features that OSPF does not that can be useful in special situations, like the OL bit, etc. OSPF - Is better known, and documentation for it is more readily available - Has an overall richer set of features than IS-IS (at least, until the latest IS-IS revisions) - Is the standard link-state routing protocol for enterprises, and is also popular in ISP's. Does anybody have anything to add? Also, I would like to know what people think the future of IS-IS is, particularly after the latest revisions. Does anybody think that IS-IS will be able to maintain and expand its foothold in ISPs, and even move to the enterprise, or is it forever doomed to its niche (and why do you think so)? I am especially interested in the opinions of people like Ms. Oppenheimer and Mr. Berkowitz. Thanx in advance Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4945&t=4945 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why isn't PNNI more popular, esp. for telcos? [7:5098]
I am struck by just how few ATM networks actually use PNNI. The few that I have found are small campus networks that have a one-level hierarchy, and seemingly only run PNNI because they want to run LANE. It would seem that PNNI would be extremely beneficial for the large ATM clouds run by the telcos. Well-defined hierarchy, integrated QoS, etc., it's all in there. Yet I have yet to encounter a telco that actually uses it. So why is that? Does running PNNI incur too much of a processing load on the ATM switches that the telcos don't want to burden them with it? Or are there backwards-compabitility issues? Just why don't more telcos implement PNNI? Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5098&t=5098 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there any really good IS-IS reference out there? [7:5100]
Does anybody know of any really good literature about IS-IS? Not just about how IS-IS works, but sample designs and configs, and so forth. Ultimately, I would like to find something for IS-IS that is comparable to what Halabi's book is for BGP, but that may be asking for too much.All I've found so far is Radia's book, and that one chapter in Doyle's book. Is there anything else? Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5100&t=5100 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has anybody ever seen a working MPOA production network? [7:5147]
Since LANE is pretty much on it's last legs, I doubt that anybody has ever seen a real working MPOA environment, but I'm just curious. If anybody has seen one, could you tell me where and why they were using it (and why they continue to use it - backwards compatibility?) Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5147&t=5147 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why can't I change tx and rx speed on 2600 AUX? [7:5171]
I'm having an odd problem. I got 2 2610's here, and I want to connect them back2back through the AUX. I would like to change the txspeed and rxspeed to 38400 on the aux line. But each time I try to do it, I get "failed to change speed". I also have a 2514 here, and I've been able to change the speeds of that Aux port just fine. So what is up with my 2610's? Does the 2600 series not support the ability to change Aux speeds (using 12.0 code)? Also, perhaps even more importantly, even if I don't change the speeds (so the speeds are at the default 9600), I still can't get the 2610's to communicate through AUX. The Async interface just keeps resetting. When I debug PPP negotiation, I see the negotiation is taking place, but apparently never completes. Does anybody know why is that? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5171&t=5171 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can fast switching/CEF handle QoS/ext. [7:5180]
I would like to know if anybody can tell me how or even if fast-switching and CEF handle special packet handling decisions like extended access-lists, policy-routing, QoS (like queuing, CAR, WRED). From reading the CiscoPress book "Inside Cisco IOS Software Architecture", I understand how fast-switching and CEF work in normal packet forwarding situations. But what happens when more intelligence is needed in packet forwarding, like in situations mentioned above? I am well aware of the command "ip route-cache policy", which seems to imply that a policy route can be cached for fast-switching. I am interested in finding out how this really works. Because I can make a policy route that matches on so many different things (source IP, IP precedence/TOS value, packet length,etc.) and can change so many different things (next hop, default next hop, prec/TOS, etc.), it seems to me that the tree or trie or whatever logic structure IOS may use would quickly become overwhelmed by the sheer number of possibilities. Which makes me wonder whether the router can really cache the policy at all, or if it can, should it (as opposed to just process-switching the packet). Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5180&t=5180 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How is IS-IS more scalable than OSPF? [7:5207]
Hello Several people have asserted that IS-IS (for IP) has demonstrated more scalability than OSPF. What accounts for this? I have heard that it has to do with IS-IS being able to take advantage of Partial-route Updates when IP information changes, as opposed to running Dijkstra all the time, is that the only factor, or are there other reasons? Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5207&t=5207 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How is IS-IS more scalable than OSPF? [7:5207]
So some people have said that IS-IS is more scalable because it doesn't run Dijsktra as much as OSPF does. OK, then why not? Is it because of the partial-routing update thing, or is there more to it? Also, I agree that IS-IS level-1 areas are by their nature "totally stubby". But that doesn't completely explain why real-world IS-IS networks have been shown to be more scalable than real-world OSPF networks, because if this was the cause, then it would seem to me that you could just scale OSPF to the same level of IS-IS just by making non-backbone areas totally stubby. Yet, apparently nobody has been able to scale OSPF like that, which indicates to me that it's not that simple. So I must ask again, what exactly is it about IS-IS that seems to make it more scalable overall than OSPF? And, as a side question, could OSPF be reasonably adjusted to accomodate greater scalability? I would especially like to invite Howard Berkowitz, aka Sir Network Deity, to answer this question. Thanx ""NRF"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hello > > Several people have asserted that IS-IS (for IP) has demonstrated more > scalability than OSPF. What accounts for this? I have heard that it has > to do with IS-IS being able to take advantage of Partial-route Updates when > IP information changes, as opposed to running Dijkstra all the time, is that > the only factor, or are there other reasons? > > Thanx > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5403&t=5207 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Funny problems with debug [7:5527]
When I use debug in my lab, sometimes the router just stops debugging. For example, it may be debugging fine for awhile. Then, all of a sudden, it will just stop debugging. The router is still alive, as I am perfectly able to type in commands, change things around, etc. It just no longer produces debug information. It's happened to me on both the console and telnet (and I have typed term mon about a billion times). I type show debug, and it shows that debugging is on. But there is no output. I even type "debug all" (it's not a production router), and still get no output which is ridiculous because I'm running a bunch of routing protocols on the router. Like I said, the router doesn't die after I type debug all (because it is very lightly loaded), as I am perfectly able to type in config commands and show commands. It just does not produce any debug output. Nor does clear logging help. The only thing that I have found that helps is to reboot the router. Then, I can put in some debug commands, and debug output will be created. And then of course, after some time, the router will just stop debugging, and I have to reboot it again. So, anybody know what is up with that? I am using 12.0(17). Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5527&t=5527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Funny problems with debug [7:5527]
I see the same problem is also happening with 12.0(14) ""EA Louie"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > sounds like you have a buggy router. I'd try an IOS change to see if that > helped - I don't know what bugs 12.0(17) had, but I can't imagine that was > one of them... > > -e- > > - Original Message - > From: "NRF" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12:08 AM > Subject: Funny problems with debug [7:5527] > > > > When I use debug in my lab, sometimes the router just stops debugging. > For > > example, it may be debugging fine for awhile. Then, all of a sudden, it > > will just stop debugging. The router is still alive, as I am perfectly > able > > to type in commands, change things around, etc. It just no longer > produces > > debug information. It's happened to me on both the console and telnet > (and > > I have typed term mon about a billion times). I type show debug, and it > > shows that debugging is on. But there is no output. > > > > I even type "debug all" (it's not a production router), and still get no > > output which is ridiculous because I'm running a bunch of routing > protocols > > on the router. Like I said, the router doesn't die after I type debug all > > (because it is very lightly loaded), as I am perfectly able to type in > > config commands and show commands. It just does not produce any debug > > output. Nor does clear logging help. > > > > The only thing that I have found that helps is to reboot the router. > Then, > > I can put in some debug commands, and debug output will be created. And > > then of course, after some time, the router will just stop debugging, and > I > > have to reboot it again. > > > > So, anybody know what is up with that? I am using 12.0(17). > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5538&t=5527 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can I have a 2600 T-1 WIC bound to a Dialer interface? [7:5546]
Consider this. I have 2 2610's, each with a WIC-1DSU T-1 card in them. I have these T-1's connected back to back. I have tried putting IP addreses, using encap ppp, and everything works cool, exactly the way I would expect it to work. So I know the cards and the cable and all that are working fine. Now, I want to try to have the T-1 interfaces invoked via Dialer interfaces. Why? Because eventually I want to get 2 more of these T-1 cards, and install one in each (so each router has 2 of them) and then run ppp multilink where I bond the 2 T-1's together to form a 3 Mb pipe. But I just cannot do it. Specifically, I have tried various ways to get the Dialer interface to bond to the T-1's (Serial 0/0). It never works. For example, I create rotary groups. It doesn't work. Then I try dialer pools. It also doesn't work. Everything I have tried doesn't work. For example, if I try to use dialer pools, then the router demands a dialer string. So I give it a dialer string. The Dialer interface then apparently tries to dial this string, which of couse fails because in a back2back T-1, there is nothing to dial. So if I try a rotary group, somehow the dialer interface never properly seizes the T-1. Instead I get an error like this, whatever the heck it means: r1#ping 192.168.20.2 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.20.2, timeout is 2 seconds: . Success rate is 0 percent (0/5) r1# 01:25:59: Se0/0 DDR: rotor dialout [priority] 01:26:01: Se0/0 DDR: rotor dialout [priority] 01:26:03: Se0/0 DDR: rotor dialout [priority] 01:26:05: Se0/0 DDR: rotor dialout [priority] 01:26:07: Se0/0 DDR: rotor dialout [priority] OK, now I have seen several CCO examples (for example the examples on PPP multilink) where they put a serial interface (not an ISDN or an async int, but an actual serial interface) under a Dialer interface. But what can I say, it has never worked for me, not once. The only thing that can I can think of is that all those CCO examples use 2500's, whereas I got 2600's here. But it shouldn't matter (or should it?). So, has anybody (especially somebody with a 2600 with a T-1 WIC)ever successfully put a serial interface under a Dialer interface and gotten them to bond correctly ? If so, could you shoot me a config? Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5546&t=5546 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exactly what happens in ATM when QoS cannot be fulfilled? [7:5658]
I am interested in exactly what happens in a real world, ATM WAN environment, where the ATM has been provisioned from a major telco (AT&T or MCI, let's say). So let's ignore SVC's and PNNI and that kind of thing, because hardly any telcos use that stuff anyways, and deal only with PVC's For example, let's say I got some routers attached to this ATM cloud, through PVC's.I have decided to contract for, say, a stringent CBR CoS because I am running real-time video. Now, I would presume that the telco has most likely overprovisioned its ATM core, in order to earn more revenue, such that the telco can meet its SLA most of the time, but not all the time. So exactly what is the sequence of events when the telco ATM switches are unable to meet the CoS requirements of the ATM "call"? I would imagine that traffic-policing and CAC would come into play. But could somebody provide a precise sequence of events that would occur? Would an error message be seen on the router? Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5658&t=5658 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3? [7:5660]
I would like to hear some opinions on MPLS. I have been reading about it, and, pardon me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like just a reinvention of ATM PNNI. I would be very interested in hearing some comments on the future of MPLS. Particularly since ATM PNNI seemed to have gotten nowhere with the telcos (and I still don't completely understand why not), then why is MPLS going to do any better (or is it)? I would be particularly interested in hearing Howard Berkowitz's opinion on the future of MPLS. Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5660&t=5660 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3? [7:5673]
Already have that book and read it, which is why I have to ask the question about PNNI and MPLS. But anyway, Howard Berkowitz has essentially answered my question. ""Circusnuts"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Could start here... > > http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/compare/isbn/1587050021 > > Phil > > - Original Message - > From: nrf > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:18 PM > Subject: Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3? [7:5660] > > > > I would like to hear some opinions on MPLS. I have been reading about it, > > and, pardon me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like just a reinvention of > > ATM PNNI. > > > > I would be very interested in hearing some comments on the future of MPLS. > > Particularly since ATM PNNI seemed to have gotten nowhere with the telcos > > (and I still don't completely understand why not), then why is MPLS going > to > > do any better (or is it)? > > > > I would be particularly interested in hearing Howard Berkowitz's opinion > on > > the future of MPLS. > > > > Thanx > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5673&t=5673 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3? [7:5674]
Howard, I have to ask, why is it that carriers use B-ICI and not PNNI? Is PNNI deficient in some way? ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >I would like to hear some opinions on MPLS. I have been reading about it, > >and, pardon me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like just a reinvention of > >ATM PNNI. > > Not really. A more accurate analogy would be to say that MPLS is ATM > without cells. > > MPLS has two parts, a forwarding plane and a control plane. PNNI is > purely a control plane function. It's based on OSPF, plus a > reservation mechanism. > > MPLS control, however, doesn't have the topology discovery that PNNI > does, just the path setup using CR-LDP, LDP, or RSVP-TE. The > existence of potential paths to set up typically comes from IP > routing. I like to think of MPLS as an overdrive for IP routing, but > definitely not, as some people misconstrue it, a replacement for IP > routing. > > There is active work on Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) that extends the > forwarding based on frame/packet headers to forwarding based on TDM > time slots, wavelengths/lambdas, or physical ports. Obviously, these > are more applications for cross-connects of facilities, without the > flexibility of per-frame or per-packet decisionmaking. > > > > >I would be very interested in hearing some comments on the future of MPLS. > >Particularly since ATM PNNI seemed to have gotten nowhere with the telcos > >(and I still don't completely understand why not), then why is MPLS going to > >do any better (or is it)? > > Remember PNNI is "private network to network interface". There are > other ATM routing schemes meant for carrier use, such as B-ICI. > > > > >I would be particularly interested in hearing Howard Berkowitz's opinion on > >the future of MPLS. > > Especially considering GMPLS and emerging optical technologies, it is > a major direction. It complements, but does not replace, IP routing. > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5674&t=5674 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exactly what happens in ATM when QoS cannot be fulfilled? [7:5680]
It seems to me that in fact there was some sort of oversubscription was going on, as the core ATM switches seemed to be overloaded and were queuing cells, thereby causing you latency. (If that is not what happened, then what else could have caused the increase in latency, maybe a cut in a link followed by rerouting?). But anyway, it seems like the QoS stipulations were violated (your latency was greater than whatever you contracted for). But the traffic still went through, right? The ATM call wasn't just rejected simply because the QoS was no longer being fulfilled, is that true? You see, I'm trying to assess what really is the relationship between ATM and QoS. Every proponent of ATM says that it has great QoS features. This makes perfect sense during SVC setup, where an edge router may make a SSCP call request for an SVC setup with a given QoS, and that request is either rejected or accepted, based on available resources. If accepted, the core ATM switches are then obliged to fulfill that QoS for the life of the SVC. But this makes much less sense in a PVC environment, where the circuits are, well, permanent. For example, for PVC's I understand that you set up a circuit with a given QoS. Then, what if, when you have stuff to send, that QoS you thought you had is just not available at that time? This same question can be extended to SVC's. Let's say you created an SVC with a certain QoS. Then, something bad happens, like one of the ATM switches dies, and rerouting occurs, and the QoS of that SVC can no longer be fulfilled. What happens now? Does the call just die? Or is it kept, but at reduced QoS (and if so, then what was the point of stipulating the QoS in the first place)? Am I just way off base here? ""Circusnuts"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I don't know that you can oversubscribe ATM like you would picture say > Frame-Relay or an ISP POP. The PVC's are generally allocated & the > bandwidth is usually carved-out. SLA's are generally well defines & the > circuits are watched (ATM Probes, NOC, SNMP) when you purchase DS3's & OC > links. We turned up new OC's in the South West & the very first symptoms > of oversubscription weren't with throughput, but latency. Malfunctioning > Apps & network management tell all... > > Phil > > - Original Message - > From: nrf > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:03 PM > Subject: Exactly what happens in ATM when QoS cannot be fulfilled? [7:5658] > > > > I am interested in exactly what happens in a real world, ATM WAN > > environment, where the ATM has been provisioned from a major telco (AT&T > or > > MCI, let's say). So let's ignore SVC's and PNNI and that kind of thing, > > because hardly any telcos use that stuff anyways, and deal only with PVC's > > > > For example, let's say I got some routers attached to this ATM cloud, > > through PVC's.I have decided to contract for, say, a stringent CBR CoS > > because I am running real-time video. > > > > Now, I would presume that the telco has most likely overprovisioned its > ATM > > core, in order to earn more revenue, such that the telco can meet its SLA > > most of the time, but not all the time. > > > > So exactly what is the sequence of events when the telco ATM switches are > > unable to meet the CoS requirements of the ATM "call"? I would imagine > that > > traffic-policing and CAC would come into play. But could somebody provide > a > > precise sequence of events that would occur? Would an error message be > seen > > on the router? > > > > Thanx > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5680&t=5680 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
anybody ever connected 2600 AUX ports back2back? [7:5844]
So I'm trying to connect the AUX ports of 2 2610's back to back. I am following a known procedure on CCO where you can connect 2500's AUX ports back to back. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/793/access_dial/auxback.html So I follow exactly what they do. But it doesn't work. Maybe the problem is that 2600's don't do back2back aux ports (the CCO example was for 2500's). But that doesn't make much sense, because why not? Anyway, has anybody ever gotten AUX 2600's (or any router for that matter) to connect back to back? For example, here is the Async config on one of the 2610's. interface Async65 ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0 no ip directed-broadcast encapsulation ppp async dynamic routing async mode dedicated Here is the aux line config: ine aux 0 modem InOut transport input all speed 38400 flowcontrol hardware So I believe that everything is good, it's exactly like the CCO config. Yet, the async interface just keeps bouncing up and down. For example: r1# 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset r1# 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up r1# 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset Here's what happens when I debug async packet r1#debug async packet Async packet I/O debugging is on r1# 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset r1# 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up r1# 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 r1# 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 1d19h: APPP65: Input packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 r1# Here's what happens when I debug async framing r1#debug async framing Async interface framing debugging is on r1# 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset r1# 1d19h: Async65: Reset PPP framing on TTY65 r1# 1d19h: Async65: Setup PPP framing on TTY65 1d19h: As65 PPP: Processed packet cached during autoselect r1# 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up r1# 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 r1# 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 r1# 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 r1# 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 r1# 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 r1# 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5844&t=5844 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: anybody ever connected 2600 AUX ports back2back? [7:5844]
Well, now I've just tried back2back aux between a 2610 and a 2514. It still doesn't work, exact same errors as before. ""NRF"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > So I'm trying to connect the AUX ports of 2 2610's back to back. I am > following a known procedure on CCO where you can connect 2500's AUX ports > back to back. > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/793/access_dial/auxback.html > > So I follow exactly what they do. But it doesn't work. Maybe the problem > is that 2600's don't do back2back aux ports (the CCO example was for > 2500's). But that doesn't make much sense, because why not? Anyway, has > anybody ever gotten AUX 2600's (or any router for that matter) to connect > back to back? > > For example, here is the Async config on one of the 2610's. > > interface Async65 > ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0 > no ip directed-broadcast > encapsulation ppp > async dynamic routing > async mode dedicated > > Here is the aux line config: > > ine aux 0 > modem InOut > transport input all > speed 38400 > flowcontrol hardware > > So I believe that everything is good, it's exactly like the CCO config. > Yet, the async interface just keeps bouncing up and down. For example: > > r1# > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > r1# > 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up > r1# > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > > > Here's what happens when I debug async packet > r1#debug async packet > Async packet I/O debugging is on > r1# > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > r1# > 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up > r1# > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > r1# > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > 1d19h: APPP65: Input packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > r1# > > Here's what happens when I debug async framing > > r1#debug async framing > Async interface framing debugging is on > r1# > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > r1# > 1d19h: Async65: Reset PPP framing on TTY65 > r1# > 1d19h: Async65: Setup PPP framing on TTY65 > 1d19h: As65 PPP: Processed packet cached during autoselect > r1# > 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up > r1# > 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 > r1# > 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 > r1# > 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 > r1# > 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 > r1# > 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 > r1# > 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5854&t=5844 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: anybody ever connected 2600 AUX ports back2back? [7:5844]
* Why do I use Async 65? Because on the 2600, the aux line is async 65 (unlike on the 2500, where aux = async 1) Check this out: r1#show line Tty Typ Tx/RxA Modem Roty AccO AccI Uses Noise Overruns Int * 0 CTY -- --- 0 0 0/0 - 65 AUX 38400/38400 - inout --- 0 0 0/0 - 66 VTY -- --- 0 0 0/0 - 67 VTY -- --- 0 0 0/0 - 68 VTY -- --- 0 0 0/0 - 69 VTY -- --- 0 0 0/0 - 70 VTY -- --- 0 0 0/0 - Line(s) not in async mode -or- with no hardware support: 1-64 r1# In fact, I can't even use Async 1, check this out: r1(config)#int async 1 ^ % Invalid input detected at '^' marker. r1(config)# * I am using the Cisco black cable. I have tried every other cable (straight Ethernet, cross Ethernet, even a cross T-1), and the Cisco black cable (the rolled cable) is the only one where I can even get anything to happen on the async port. But evidently, I can't get enough to happen on it, because it still ain't working. * As you can see by the speed command, I am trying to hardcode the speed. Nevertheless, I have tried various speeds, autoselecting, etc. etc., and it still don't work. You got a particular speed you want to suggest? * Async default routing? Just tried it. Makes no difference. I am getting the same errors as before. ""Doug Hammond"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Some thoughts - > Try putting in this command on your async interface: async default routing > Also what type of cable are you using? I've always used the cisco black > cable. > And try to hard-code the rxspeed and txspeed. I never trust auto-select. > Why are you using async65? Wouldn't it be async1? > > ""NRF"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Well, now I've just tried back2back aux between a 2610 and a 2514. It > still > > doesn't work, exact same errors as before. > > > > > > > > > > ""NRF"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > So I'm trying to connect the AUX ports of 2 2610's back to back. I am > > > following a known procedure on CCO where you can connect 2500's AUX > ports > > > back to back. > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/793/access_dial/auxback.html > > > > > > So I follow exactly what they do. But it doesn't work. Maybe the > problem > > > is that 2600's don't do back2back aux ports (the CCO example was for > > > 2500's). But that doesn't make much sense, because why not? Anyway, > has > > > anybody ever gotten AUX 2600's (or any router for that matter) to > connect > > > back to back? > > > > > > For example, here is the Async config on one of the 2610's. > > > > > > interface Async65 > > > ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0 > > > no ip directed-broadcast > > > encapsulation ppp > > > async dynamic routing > > > async mode dedicated > > > > > > Here is the aux line config: > > > > > > ine aux 0 > > > modem InOut > > > transport input all > > > speed 38400 > > > flowcontrol hardware > > > > > > So I believe that everything is good, it's exactly like the CCO config. > > > Yet, the async interface just keeps bouncing up and down. For example: > > > > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > > > > > > > > > Here's what happens when I debug async packet > > > r1#debug async packet > > > Async packet I/O debugging is on > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > > > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > > > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > &g
Re: anybody ever connected 2600 AUX ports back2back? [7:5844]
Cleared the line about a hundred times. Yes I am using the roll cable. Tried using the low speeds. Still doesn't work. ""Maness, Drew"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > You might just need to clear both lines. Clear line x Also are you using a > rollover cable? > > -Original Message- > From: Doug Hammond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: anybody ever connected 2600 AUX ports back2back? [7:5844] > > > Some thoughts - > Try putting in this command on your async interface: async default routing > Also what type of cable are you using? I've always used the cisco black > cable. > And try to hard-code the rxspeed and txspeed. I never trust auto-select. > Why are you using async65? Wouldn't it be async1? > > ""NRF"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Well, now I've just tried back2back aux between a 2610 and a 2514. It > still > > doesn't work, exact same errors as before. > > > > > > > > > > ""NRF"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > So I'm trying to connect the AUX ports of 2 2610's back to back. I am > > > following a known procedure on CCO where you can connect 2500's AUX > ports > > > back to back. > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/793/access_dial/auxback.html > > > > > > So I follow exactly what they do. But it doesn't work. Maybe the > problem > > > is that 2600's don't do back2back aux ports (the CCO example was for > > > 2500's). But that doesn't make much sense, because why not? Anyway, > has > > > anybody ever gotten AUX 2600's (or any router for that matter) to > connect > > > back to back? > > > > > > For example, here is the Async config on one of the 2610's. > > > > > > interface Async65 > > > ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0 > > > no ip directed-broadcast > > > encapsulation ppp > > > async dynamic routing > > > async mode dedicated > > > > > > Here is the aux line config: > > > > > > ine aux 0 > > > modem InOut > > > transport input all > > > speed 38400 > > > flowcontrol hardware > > > > > > So I believe that everything is good, it's exactly like the CCO config. > > > Yet, the async interface just keeps bouncing up and down. For example: > > > > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > > > > > > > > > Here's what happens when I debug async packet > > > r1#debug async packet > > > Async packet I/O debugging is on > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > > > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > > > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > > > 1d19h: APPP65: Input packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > > > 1d19h: APPP65: Output packet, len = 24, header = FF 3 C0 21 > > > r1# > > > > > > Here's what happens when I debug async framing > > > > > > r1#debug async framing > > > Async interface framing debugging is on > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: Async65: Reset PPP framing on TTY65 > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: Async65: Setup PPP framing on TTY65 > > > 1d19h: As65 PPP: Processed packet cached during autoselect > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: As65: Enabling PPP framing in UART Microcode on TTY65 > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: As65
Re: anybody ever connected 2600 AUX ports back2back? [7:5844]
So I just copied Li Ling's config to my routers. Still doesn't work. Yes, I am using a rolled cable. Check this out: r1#show int async 65 Async65 is up, line protocol is down Hardware is Async Serial Internet address is 192.168.10.1/24 MTU 1500 bytes, BW 9 Kbit, DLY 10 usec, rely 255/255, load 1/255 Encapsulation PPP, loopback not set, keepalive not set DTR is pulsed for 5 seconds on reset LCP ACKsent Closed: IPCP, CDPCP Last input 00:00:01, output 00:00:00, output hang never Last clearing of "show interface" counters 18:04:47 Input queue: 1/75/0 (size/max/drops); Total output drops: 0 Queueing strategy: weighted fair Output queue: 0/1000/64/0 (size/max total/threshold/drops) Conversations 0/1/256 (active/max active/max total) Reserved Conversations 0/0 (allocated/max allocated) 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec 1354 packets input, 32496 bytes, 0 no buffer Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort 2709 packets output, 65016 bytes, 0 underruns 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 126 interface resets 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out 0 carrier transitions No matter what I do, the async interface is always up-down. And I am always getting these kinds of messages: 2d13h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset r1# 2d13h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up r1# 2d13h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset r1# 2d13h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up Funny, I copied the exact same config as on CCO, and from Li Ling, and it doesn't work. I hate when that happens. ""Maness, Drew"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > You might just need to clear both lines. Clear line x Also are you using a > rollover cable? > > -Original Message- > From: Doug Hammond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: anybody ever connected 2600 AUX ports back2back? [7:5844] > > > Some thoughts - > Try putting in this command on your async interface: async default routing > Also what type of cable are you using? I've always used the cisco black > cable. > And try to hard-code the rxspeed and txspeed. I never trust auto-select. > Why are you using async65? Wouldn't it be async1? > > ""NRF"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Well, now I've just tried back2back aux between a 2610 and a 2514. It > still > > doesn't work, exact same errors as before. > > > > > > > > > > ""NRF"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > So I'm trying to connect the AUX ports of 2 2610's back to back. I am > > > following a known procedure on CCO where you can connect 2500's AUX > ports > > > back to back. > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/793/access_dial/auxback.html > > > > > > So I follow exactly what they do. But it doesn't work. Maybe the > problem > > > is that 2600's don't do back2back aux ports (the CCO example was for > > > 2500's). But that doesn't make much sense, because why not? Anyway, > has > > > anybody ever gotten AUX 2600's (or any router for that matter) to > connect > > > back to back? > > > > > > For example, here is the Async config on one of the 2610's. > > > > > > interface Async65 > > > ip address 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.0 > > > no ip directed-broadcast > > > encapsulation ppp > > > async dynamic routing > > > async mode dedicated > > > > > > Here is the aux line config: > > > > > > ine aux 0 > > > modem InOut > > > transport input all > > > speed 38400 > > > flowcontrol hardware > > > > > > So I believe that everything is good, it's exactly like the CCO config. > > > Yet, the async interface just keeps bouncing up and down. For example: > > > > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Async65, changed state to up > > > r1# > > > 1d19h: %LINK-5-CHANGED: Interface Async65, changed state to reset > > > > > > > > > Here's what happens when I debug async packet > > > r1#debug async pac
Can I set up a VPDN, where the user "dials-in" using a T-1? [7:6105]
Hello all: Anybody here who's a Dial expert, consider this. I have 3 routers, A, B, and C. A and B are connected back2back with T-1 WIC's. B and C are connected through Ethernet. I want to set up a VPDN such that B is the LAC (the NAS), and C is the home gateway (the LNS). The things that makes this different from all the standard kinds of VPDN is that there is no dialup connection between A and B. Rather there is just a serial link (with PPP encap) between the client (A) and the LNS (B). Also, the client is not the typical client for VPDN (a person dialing in through a PC), but rather it is a router. I have been fiddling around trying to make this setup work. I works to a point, then I get funny errors (for example, B complains that the home gateway IP address is unreachable, even though it can ping it). So does anybody here know how or even if this setup will work? Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6105&t=6105 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
Mr. Berkowitz, please read this post and respond. Okay, I am going to run the risk of starting a religious war here. But I do have to ask, is MPLS really as great as people say? I know many people, on newsgroups and in real-life, champion MPLS as the perfect answer to the problems of the core Internet. Faster IP forwarding, traffic engineering, VPN capabilities, etc., it seems to have some powerful features.No doubt, this attitude is sparked by Juniper, which is using MPLS as a strategic weapon against Cisco, and since Juniper keeps eating Cisco's lunch, it stands to reason that MPLS has something to do with it. In fact, many network engineers treat MPLS as nothing less than the holy grail. But I wonder if the hype has begun to outstrip reality. For example, as a response to the LightReading test, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canadian carrier Canarie states "The MPLS [multiprotocol label switching] throughput results confirmed our suspicions that MPLS does not buy you much except a big management headache. True, the throughput is higher, but not significantly higher than IP forwarding" http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=testing&doc_id=3909 And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother of all networking, Radia Perlman: " Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast routers, but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of packet for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering..." (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. So I must ask, does MPLS really live up to all the hype? Is it really the greatest thing since sliced bread? How much of MPLS really is an improvement on today's network, and how much of it is just a bunch of (probably Juniper) marketing bullshi*? Has any company ever worked for a company that evaluated MPLS and then decided not to use it, and if so, what were the reasons? Thanx for all the non-flame responses Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6151&t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
So are you saying that what Radia wrote is outdated and that MPLS is indeed significantly faster than straight IP forwarding? Bill St. Arnaud and Howard Berkowitz would emphatically disagree with that, so could you point me to some evidence supporting this contention that MPLS is indeed much faster? Not trying to flame, just trying to learn. ""KY"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""NRF"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother > of > > all networking, Radia Perlman: > > " Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast > routers, > > but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary > > searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now > > MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of > packet > > for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic engineering..." > > (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree > > that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. > > > Her book was published on 01/2000, I would imagine the actual context must > be written 6 month earlier than that date, so her comments on MPLS was > almost two years old, we all know in our network world two years means what. > Just read all those RFCs/Drafts since late 1999. > I believe MPLS will play a key role in the optical world, such as DWDM. > > KY > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6162&t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
Hey Howard, sorry if my last few posts have been an imposition on you. When I said "please respond", what I should have said was that "I really hope you can respond", and I sincerely apologize for using improper tone of language. Thank you for your kick-ass responses. ""NRF"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > So are you saying that what Radia wrote is outdated and that MPLS is indeed > significantly faster than straight IP forwarding? Bill St. Arnaud and > Howard Berkowitz would emphatically disagree with that, so could you point > me to some evidence supporting this contention that MPLS is indeed much > faster? > > Not trying to flame, just trying to learn. > > > ""KY"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > ""NRF"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > And even the idea of higher throughput has been questioned by the mother > > of > > > all networking, Radia Perlman: > > > " Originally [MPLS] was designed to make it possible to build fast > > routers, > > > but then, using techniques such as [trie searches, parallelism, K-ary > > > searches] people built routers fast enough on native IP packets. So now > > > MPLS is thought to be mostly a technique for classifying the type of > > packet > > > for quality of service or for assigning routes for traffic > engineering..." > > > (Interconnections, 2nd Ed., p. 347-348). And I think we would all agree > > > that anything Ms. Perlman says must be given serious weight. > > > > > > Her book was published on 01/2000, I would imagine the actual context must > > be written 6 month earlier than that date, so her comments on MPLS was > > almost two years old, we all know in our network world two years means > what. > > Just read all those RFCs/Drafts since late 1999. > > I believe MPLS will play a key role in the optical world, such as DWDM. > > > > KY > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6168&t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With a dialup setup, I can trace, but not ping, why's that? [7:6177]
I got this weird situation here: I got router A that dials into router B through an analog modem (async lines). On both routers A and B, I am using dialer profiles with rotary-groups. B is also connected to the Internet, through E0 (to a cable modem), and I have properly set up NAT, so that E0 is the outside interface and the dialer interface is the inside interface. A can properly dial into B with no problem. A has a static route pointing to its dialer interface. A does not have any other routes (all other interfaces have been shut, etc.) So basically, A has to dial to B to get anywhere. I have verified that dialing does indeed work properly. A cannot ping the outside world. For example, if I ping www.yahoo.com I get nothing. But here's the really weird part. Apparently, A can trace to www.yahoo.com, with no problem. I should also state that my dialer-list is this: dialer-list 1 protocol ip permit So, does anybody know why I can trace, but not ping? Is there something about Async interfaces or Dialer interfaces that causes thing weird behavior to happen? Check out this output: r1#trace www.yahoo.com Translating "www.yahoo.com"...domain server (128.32.136.12) [OK] Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to www.yahoo.akadns.net (204.71.200.67) 1 50.50.50.50 40 msec 36 msec 36 msec 2 24.250.141.1 52 msec 48 msec 48 msec 3 r1-ge-3-0.pinol1.sfba.home.net (24.9.239.225) 52 msec 48 msec 52 msec 4 r1-dpt-srp-5-0.oakland1.sfba.home.net (216.197.144.148) 52 msec 52 msec 48 m sec 5 bb1-dpt-srp-1-0.rdc1.sfba.home.net (216.197.144.129) 56 msec 52 msec 53 msec 6 c2-pos5-1.snjsca1.home.net (24.7.76.181) 52 msec 52 msec 52 msec 7 pos6-3.core1.SanJose1.Level3.net (209.245.146.129) 64 msec 56 msec 52 msec 8 gigaethernet6-0.ipcolo1.SanJose1.Level3.net (209.244.13.42) 56 msec 56 msec 52 msec 9 POS11-0.ipcolo3.SanJose1.Level3.net (209.244.13.58) 52 msec 53 msec 52 msec 10 cust-int.level3.net (64.152.69.18) 56 msec 56 msec 56 msec 11 ge-1-2-0.msr2.pao.yahoo.com (216.115.100.154) 60 msec 52 msec 52 msec 12 vl21.bas2.snv.yahoo.com (216.115.100.229) 53 msec 56 msec 56 msec 13 www.yahoo.akadns.net (204.71.200.67) 52 msec 56 msec 52 msec r1#ping 204.71.200.67 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 204.71.200.67, timeout is 2 seconds: . Success rate is 0 percent (0/5) r1# Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6177&t=6177 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: With a dialup setup, I can trace, but not ping, why's that? [7:6197]
When I try to ping, the modem dials, and the async int comes up, etc. So everything seems to behave normally when I ping. It just doesn't receive any echo replies. I even debug ip packet on router B (the dial up server), and I see that packets to yahoo are indeed being forwarded correctly. So the modem is working, the dialer-list is correct, the IP routing is working. But apparently replies never come back. Weird, really weird. Which is odd because I can ping www.yahoo.com from router B just fine. And, like I said, I can trace Yahoo from A with no problem. I just cannot ping yahoo from A. But A can ping all interfaces of router B. And yes, I have tried using IP addresses, without DNS names. Same result. I can do everything except ping from A. By the way, I like the idea of "debug serial killer". But of course, it only works if you have previously typed the command "hostname charlesmanson" ""ElephantChild"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > On Tue, 29 May 2001, NRF wrote: > > > I got this weird situation here: > > > > I got router A that dials into router B through an analog modem (async > > lines). On both routers A and B, I am using dialer profiles with > > rotary-groups. B is also connected to the Internet, through E0 (to a cable > > modem), and I have properly set up NAT, so that E0 is the outside interface > > and the dialer interface is the inside interface. > > > > A can properly dial into B with no problem. A has a static route pointing > > to its dialer interface. A does not have any other routes (all other > > interfaces have been shut, etc.) So basically, A has to dial to B to get > > anywhere. I have verified that dialing does indeed work properly. > > > > A cannot ping the outside world. For example, if I ping www.yahoo.com I > get > > nothing. But here's the really weird part. Apparently, A can trace to > > www.yahoo.com, with no problem. I should also state that my dialer-list > is > > this: > > > > dialer-list 1 protocol ip permit > > > > So, does anybody know why I can trace, but not ping? Is there something > > about Async interfaces or Dialer interfaces that causes thing weird > behavior > > to happen? > > Does anything happen at all when you ping a remote machine? Modem > dialing, or trying to? Does the ping work after the traceroute causes A > to dial into B? > > Look at the output of the following debug commands: > > debug serial packets > debug serial events > debug serial killer > debug ip icmp > > You may also try using IP adresses instead of names, to factor out any > possible side effect of the DNS requests. > > > Check out this output: > > > > r1#trace www.yahoo.com > > Translating "www.yahoo.com"...domain server (128.32.136.12) [OK] > > > > Type escape sequence to abort. > > Tracing the route to www.yahoo.akadns.net (204.71.200.67) > > > > 1 50.50.50.50 40 msec 36 msec 36 msec > > 2 24.250.141.1 52 msec 48 msec 48 msec > > 3 r1-ge-3-0.pinol1.sfba.home.net (24.9.239.225) 52 msec 48 msec 52 msec > > 4 r1-dpt-srp-5-0.oakland1.sfba.home.net (216.197.144.148) 52 msec 52 msec > > 48 m > > sec > > 5 bb1-dpt-srp-1-0.rdc1.sfba.home.net (216.197.144.129) 56 msec 52 msec 53 > > msec > > > > 6 c2-pos5-1.snjsca1.home.net (24.7.76.181) 52 msec 52 msec 52 msec > > 7 pos6-3.core1.SanJose1.Level3.net (209.245.146.129) 64 msec 56 msec 52 > > msec > > 8 gigaethernet6-0.ipcolo1.SanJose1.Level3.net (209.244.13.42) 56 msec 56 > > msec > > 52 msec > > 9 POS11-0.ipcolo3.SanJose1.Level3.net (209.244.13.58) 52 msec 53 msec 52 > > msec > > 10 cust-int.level3.net (64.152.69.18) 56 msec 56 msec 56 msec > > 11 ge-1-2-0.msr2.pao.yahoo.com (216.115.100.154) 60 msec 52 msec 52 msec > > 12 vl21.bas2.snv.yahoo.com (216.115.100.229) 53 msec 56 msec 56 msec > > 13 www.yahoo.akadns.net (204.71.200.67) 52 msec 56 msec 52 msec > > r1#ping 204.71.200.67 > > > > Type escape sequence to abort. > > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 204.71.200.67, timeout is 2 seconds: > > . > > Success rate is 0 percent (0/5) > > r1# > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- > "Someone approached me and asked me to teach a javascript course. I was > about to decline, saying that my complete ignorance of the subject made > me unsuitable, then I thought again, that maybe it doesn't, as driving > people away from it is a desirable outcome." --Me > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6197&t=6197 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anybody really use VPDN's? [7:6198]
I am curious to know if anybody out there really uses ISP-driven mandatory VPDN's. By that, I don't mean the client-driven PPTP/L2TP tunnel for the roving salesmen to dial back into the office network, as I am well aware that this is quite popular. What I am talking about is the ISP-provided mandatory VPDN, where the access-server is the LAC , and there is a 3-tier architecture between client, LAC, and LNS. Now that IPsec, and accompanying client software is so prevalent, it seems to me that there is not much reason to use ISP VPDN's at all. I understand that there are certain advantages from a ISP VPDN that are unavailable from a client-driven VPN. But it seems to me, at first blush, that these advantages do not outweigh the added cost and frustration of dealing with a telco. So can anyone present a case when an ISP VPDN is indeed the best solution, better than any of the alternatives? Note - I'm not trying to dis' anybody who really likes ISP VPDN's. I Not at all. I am sure there must be some reasons for using them. I am just trying to gain an understanding of what those reasons might be. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6198&t=6198 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
""KY"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > No. > Ms.Radia's comments were absolutely correct at the time of her writing, she > just could not say anything that had not happened while she wrote the book. > Tag switching and other proprietary similar technologies, on which MPLS was > built, were faster than IP switching when ip switching was way slower. When > MPLS came out, the speed of ip switching was already greatly improved by new > hardware. So MPLS's design and implementation not focus on beating ip > switching on speed anymore. Traffic engineering, VPN(both cisco and > juniper), integrating ip into ATM and DWDM are the arenas for MPLS, my > opinion. > > KY So because Radia Perlman wrote what she wrote 2 years ago before most of these new hardware improvements were utilized by vendors, you could say that what she really did in her book was to correctly predict the future - that MPLS would have little speed advantage, and therefore would be used for traffic-engineering and VPNs (which I think is just another form of traffic-engineering). Then again, if anybody in the world has networking ESP (psychic friend's networking?) , Radia Perlman would be the one. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6202&t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does MPLS really live up to all its hype? [7:6151]
""KY"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Mike, > > I agree with you. cisco definitely made a fatal mistake here and leave a > huge room for at least one company, Juniper. Well, I'm sure that everybody knows Cisco's corporate strategy has always been to try to figure out what's going to be hot, and then just acquire somebody. Sometimes it works (Grand Junction still being the best example), sometimes it doesn't. But I've never seen Cisco as much of a research-oriented company, at least not in the lines of Lucent, with its world-class Bell Labs, or Nortel. Rather, it is a sales/marketing driven company that also likes to play the acquisition card. So I'm sure that if and when lambda switching really gets big, Cisco will come calling, wallet in hand. The suits in Cisco must be thinking something like: "This acquisition strategy has worked pretty well so far, so why not keep doing it?" Of course, this strategy is not so easy to do when your stock price has crashed. Cisco better figure out how to get its market cap back up. Note - for would-be flamers - I am not commenting on whether Cisco's dumping of the 15900 was a smart or stupid thing. What I am saying is that doing so was perfectly in line with its corporate culture. And I'm sure we would all agree that it is extremely difficult for big companies to change their culture. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6348&t=6151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So is the IOS version with IPv6 finally available? [7:6691]
Has anybody gotten the IOS version that has Ipv6? I know Cisco said it was going to be available at the end of May, and it's the end of May. According to Cisco's Web site, the version is 12.2(1)T, but when I go to the download center, I don't see any 12.2(1) T option. Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6691&t=6691 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help on Nlsp [7:7580]
""No Data"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > First, you dont need ipxwan to connect two routers > together, you only need it if you need to talk to a > Novell server on the other end of a WAN link (as in > that server is also routing). You can just use 'ipx > network #' (no encapsulation to worry about) on those > links. Actually, according to Cisco doc's, the only way for a router to accept NLSP on a Serial link is for that link to have IPXWan enabled. For example, consider: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/np2_c /2cipx.htm#xtocid2433042 Scroll down to the part where they talk about enablling NLSP on a WAN interface, and notice how ipxwan is required. > Second, when connecting two routers with ipxwan you > dont need 'ipx nlsp enable' on the interface. If you > are connecting to a Novell box the necessity of that > command depends on the Novell configuration. > > Third, try 'ipx ipxwan 0 unnumbered 'routername'' > instead of specifying the local node and network > number. The '0' above designates to use the global > local node id. Im pretty sure this refers to your > internal ipx network and since you have one internal > you would be safe using this. I would recommend > unnumbered as really that is what ipxwan was designed > for (between two Novell boxes there is no ipx network > number). > > Ben, CCNP > > --- Dar wrote: > > hi, > > Guyzz i am having problem with Nlsp. Can u look at > > my configs and let me > > know wots wrong with it. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > 4001-3601-3602-4002 > > > > > > > > A-4002#sh run > > ipx routing .0cf1.571a > > ipx internal-network 400 > > ! > > interface Loopback0 > > ip address 128.103.35.97 255.255.255.240 > > no ip directed-broadcast > > ipx network DAAD > > ! > > interface Serial0 > > ip address 128.103.35.34 255.255.255.240 > > no ip directed-broadcast > > ipx ipxwan 10 A010 R1 > > ipx nlsp enable > > no fair-queue > > ! > > ipx router nlsp > > area-address A000 FF00 > > > > 3602#sh run > > ! > > ipx routing 0002.b934.b791 > > ipx internal-network 300 > > ! > > interface Serial0/3 > > bandwidth 256 > > ip address 172.16.1.2 255.255.255.0 > > no ip directed-broadcast > > no ip mroute-cache > > ipx ipxwan 30 A020 R2 > > ipx nlsp enable > > fair-queue 64 32 0 > > no cdp enable > > ! > > interface Serial0/5 > > bandwidth 1544 > > ip address 128.103.35.33 255.255.255.240 > > no ip directed-broadcast > > no ip mroute-cache > > delay 2000 > > ipx ipxwan 20 A010 R2 > > ipx nlsp enable > > fair-queue 64 32 0 > > no ignore-hw local-loopback > > clockrate 64000 > > ! > > ! > > ipx router nlsp > > area-address A000 FF00 > > > > > > 3601#sh run > > ! > > ipx routing .0c8a.a695 > > ipx internal-network 200 > > ! > > interface Serial0/3 > > ip address 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.0 > > no ip directed-broadcast > > no ip mroute-cache > > ipx ipxwan 40 A020 R3 > > ipx nlsp enable > > no ignore-hw local-loopback > > clockrate 64000 > > ! > > interface Serial0/4 > > bandwidth 1 > > ip address 192.168.3.1 255.255.255.0 > > no ip directed-broadcast > > no ip mroute-cache > > delay 100 > > ipx ipxwan 50 B020 R3 > > ipx nlsp 1 enable > > fair-queue 64 32 0 > > ! > > ! > > ipx router nlsp > > area-address A000 FF00 > > ! > > ! > > ipx router nlsp 1 > > area-address B000 FF00 > > ! > > > > 4001#sh run > > ! > > interface Loopback0 > > no ip address > > no ip directed-broadcast > > ipx network DAAF > > ! > > interface Serial1 > > bandwidth 1 > > ip address 192.168.3.2 255.255.255.0 > > no ip directed-broadcast > > delay 100 > > ipx ipxwan 60 B020 R4 > > ipx nlsp 1 enable > > fair-queue 64 256 0 > > clockrate 64000 > > ! > > ipx router nlsp 1 > > area-address B000 FF00 > > ** > > A-4002#sh ipx nlsp nei > > NLSP Level-1 Neighbors: Tag Identifier = notag > > > > System Id Interface State Holdtime Priority > > Cir Adj Circuit Id > > 3602 Se0 Up 540 > > -- -- 03 > > A-4002#sh ipx nlsp nei det > > NLSP Level-1 Neighbors: Tag Identifier = notag > > > > System Id Interface State Holdtime Priority > > Cir Adj Circuit Id > > 3602 Se0 Up 510 > > -- -- 03 > > IPX Address: 300...0001 > > IPX Areas: A000/FF00 > > Uptime: 00:25:09 > > > > A-4002#sh ipx nlsp database detail > > NLSP Level-1 Link State Database: Tag Identifier = > > notag > > LSPID LSP Seq Num LSP Checksum LSP > > Holdtime ATT/P/OL > > 3601.00-000x0007 0x8540 > > 6829 0/0/0 > > IPX Area Address: A000 FF00 > > IPX Mgmt Info 200...0001 Ver 1 Name 3601 > > Metric: 45 Lnk 3602.00MTU 1500 Dly > > 15124 Thru 60K Generic > > WAN > > Metric: 45 Lnk 3601.02MTU 1500
Multilink PPP - how scalable and efficient is it anyway? [7:7685]
I was wondering if anyone can comment on the scalability and efficiency of MLPPP. I would like to direct this question to those who work at telcos, as well as Mr. Berkowitz, could you please please provide me with some information? For example, I have noticed Cisco documentation about the 1 ESR that states that you can link 10 DS-1's. Why just 10, what happens if you try to bundle more?And exactly how efficient is it when 10 DS-1's are linked together like that - as I have to believe there must be significant overhead that reduces the throughput below the theoretical limit of 10*DS1= 15.44 Mbps. But exactly how much bandwidth could you expect - 10 M? 12M? More? http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/aggr/1/techedge/ch1ovw.h tm Also, in a discussion with one of the head guys at UUNet, he scoffed at the notion of being able to use multilink to deal with very high-capacity future networks. For example, he gave the example of having 100 cross-country optical links, each using DWDM with 100 wavelengths, for a grand total of 10,000 links, and he completely dismissed the idea of using multilink to bond 10,000 links together. Now 10,000 is indeed ridiculous, but then that begs the question - what's reasonable? 10 (like the Cisco ESR)? 100? 1000? Unfortunately, I don't have the link of that guy's interview on me, I'll find it soon. Finally, I've noticed that Cisco recommends for async links, that PPP not be used for more than 3 links. Why? Exactly what happens when you bundle more than 3 async links? Thanks in advance. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7685&t=7685 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question for NetRanger experts - ever build your own sensor [7:9471]
I am looking for somebody who has used NetRanger before. Is it true that you can, using software from the Director CD, turn any Sun workstation into a Sensor? If so, has anybody ever done this, and were there any problems, or does this new sensor behave exactly like one bought from Cisco? I am trying to set up a cheap IDS lab, and I don't want to pay through the nose for sensors, I'd rather "make" my own, if this is possible. Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=9471&t=9471 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IPsec passthru with Linksys or D-link ,what's up with that? [7:9473]
I have been reading that companies like Linksys and D-link sell those cheap home broadband routers that now support IPsec passthru. I take it that means that one of your PC's can use VPN client software to build a IPSec tunnel to a corporate network. So how does this passthru thing work exactly? It would seem to me to violate the cherished notion that NAPT (which is what is performed by these little routers to allow multiple home PC's to access the same broadband link) should never be used after IPsec. More specifically, I take it that most of those VPN client software setups are using ESP transport mode. OK, so how exactly do these routers perform NAPT on an ESP transport connection? I suppose there really is no "port translation" anymore, because the TCP/UDP port number are protected by ESP and cannot be changed without compromising the integrity of the IPSEC tunnel. So perhaps SPI's are used by the router to demux, otherwise then that would imply that there could only be 1 IPsec tunnel going through the router at a given instance (because if SPI's are not used, and you had 2 PC's in your house and both were doing VPN's, then how would the router know what VPN return traffic goes to which PC?). Also I see a problem with the TCP/UDP header checksum, because it is calculated based on the entire header (the "pseudo-header"), which must necessarily change because of the NAT (IP addresses must be changed from private to public addresses). And of course you cannot repair the TCP/UDP checksum because it is protected by ESP. So I take it the corporate VPN terminator must have TCP/UDP checksums turned off, is that true? Am I just way off-base here? Does anybody know what is the real deal with these little routers doing "pass-thru"? Is it just more marketing bull? Thanx in advance Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=9473&t=9473 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Multicast on the Internet - what is the status [7:9655]
hello gang: I hope some experts like Howard Berkowitz can respond: question - what is the status of multicasting on the Internet today? Both technically, and non-technically? I understand that the first iteration involved some version of PIM (probably sparse-dense) in an internal network, connected to the MBONE vie DVMRP tunnels . Many experts disliked this method due to the inherent lack of scalability of DVMRP and, I believe, there was also no standard way to allocate group addresses (only via SDR/SAP, I believe) So, the second iteration consisted of, once again, PIM (almost certainly sparse-dense) used in an internal network, but with MBGP to connect to the Internet and MSDP to locate other sources while still providing RP placement flexibility. And I also thought MASC/MADCAP was an attempt to solve the whole address allocation problem (but it still leaves several problems unresolved, like how to allocate addresses fairly). But now I've noticed yet another group of technologies emerging - BGMP (which I am told is supposed to be better than MSDP/MBGP, but I don't yet understand how it is better), bidirectional PIM (which seems to be another name for CBT), and SSM with IGMP V3 (which still leaves open the question that how would you know who to block and who not to block?). Plus, I seem to see less emphasis on CGMP, and more emphasis on RGMP and IGMP snooping. But the bottom line is that I still don't see too many widespread consumer-uses of multicasting. I only see real-world uses of multicasting within companies (financial information in investment companies), or, across the Internet, meetings of standards bodies. But, for example, I don't see anything like the Superbowl or the World Series being delivered via multicast. OK, OK, that's because of corporate licensing restrictions, but I think you see my point, I don't see a whole lot of multicasting that delivers information of interest to the average user. So, are these new multicasting technologies becoming very popular, and if so, why (and if not, why not)? And will these technologies make Internet multicasting more wide-spread, or does that have to do with things like politics, money, and that kind of thing (layer 8 of the OSI model)? Exactly what is happening with Internet multicasting? Thanx NRF Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=9655&t=9655 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Line 1 not configured for async connection [7:10163]
Try using line 65 ""Malik Muhammad"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I'm trying to connect a modem to my auxiliary port on my routers. I try to > configure Line tty 1, and it tells me that it's configured to be an async > line (2611) or that it's no physical hardware support for line 1. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10244&t=10163 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange situation with NAT and telnet [7:10387]
Hey all: I have this strange situation where I cannot telnet into my router. This is what happens. I am successfully running NAT (with overload), with no problem. I can telnet into the interface that is the inside NAT with no problem. I can also telnet into any non-NAT interface with no problem. The problem occurs when I try to telnet into the interface that is the designated outside NAT interface. For example, when I fire up telnet from Windows and telnet to that outside NAT interface, it just shows that it is trying to connect, but it never connects. Now, I can assure you that connectivity is fine. I can ping that interface. People from the inside can get to the outside, with no problem. So it's not a routing issue, I am sure. I have monitored what happens when I try to telnet, as I have an access-class on the vty line that allows anything in (permit ip any any), but is set for logging. So I notice that telnet packets are indeed being permitted by the access-list, meaning the telnet request is hitting the router successfully. On the console, I even get a message saying that the access-list is allowing a telnet packet in. So everything seems cool. But somehow the router doesn't want to acknowledge the telnet request. Does anybody know what is up with that? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10387&t=10387 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Strange situation with NAT and telnet [7:10387]
Well, to answer your question, I don't want to telnet to the outside interface from the inside. I want to telnet to the outside interface from the outside, and clearly due to the NAT, the outside interface is the only interface I can telnet to, and because of this stupid bug, I cannot. So basically what it boils down to is that nobody from the outside can ever telnet into the router, which bites. And somebody asked what OS and what router I am using. It is 12.2(1), on a 2514. ""Allen May"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > OK I don't have the real answer but it seems that NAT overload is on the > same IP address that you're trying to telnet to. That would be kind of > weird for the box to receive a telnet request from & to the same IP. > > No flames but I'll just throw a suggestion to try (let me know if it works). > Try settting up an access-list for NONAT when going to that IP address. > That will leave the source address alone. And it looks like you've set up > an access-list to allow telnet to that interface already but double check > that. > > I have to ask...why telnet to the outside interface from inside? > > Allen > > > - Original Message - > From: "nrf" > To: > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:01 AM > Subject: Strange situation with NAT and telnet [7:10387] > > > > Hey all: > > > > I have this strange situation where I cannot telnet into my router. This > is > > what happens. > > > > I am successfully running NAT (with overload), with no problem. I can > > telnet into the interface that is the inside NAT with no problem. I can > > also telnet into any non-NAT interface with no problem. The problem > occurs > > when I try to telnet into the interface that is the designated outside NAT > > interface. For example, when I fire up telnet from Windows and telnet to > > that outside NAT interface, it just shows that it is trying to connect, > but > > it never connects. > > > > Now, I can assure you that connectivity is fine. I can ping that > interface. > > People from the inside can get to the outside, with no problem. So it's > not > > a routing issue, I am sure. > > > > I have monitored what happens when I try to telnet, as I have an > > access-class on the vty line that allows anything in (permit ip any any), > > but is set for logging. So I notice that telnet packets are indeed being > > permitted by the access-list, meaning the telnet request is hitting the > > router successfully. On the console, I even get a message saying that the > > access-list is allowing a telnet packet in. So everything seems cool. > But > > somehow the router doesn't want to acknowledge the telnet request. > > > > Does anybody know what is up with that? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10454&t=10387 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Router as PPTP server - problems [7:10481]
I got a 2514 running 12.2, and I want to set it up to be a PPTP server. I have reviewed the CCO docs' and I believe I have done everything they told me to do. But it doesn't work. For example, when I fire up a PPTP client from W2k, I see that the router is contacted and it gets to the "Verifying Username and password" stage, but doesn't proceed further. Does anybody know what it up with that? Here is what I configured on the router: username me password 0 me ip local pool default 120.1.1.1 120.1.1.2 vpdn enable vpdn-group mypptpgroup ! Default PPTP VPDN group accept-dialin protocol pptp virtual-template 3 interface Virtual-Template3 ip unnumbered Loopback0 peer default ip address pool default ppp encrypt mppe 40 ppp authentication ms-chap I set up Windows2000 for PPTP client (no L2TP), using MsCHAP v1 (not v2 because I saw the CCO warnings not to use v2), and PPP LCP extensions. I have tried it with and without software compression. When I debug PPP nego and VPDN event and VPDN packet, I just get the following over and over. The error at the very end is really odd, perhaps that has something to do with it? router# 03:22:34: Vi1 VPDN: Virtual interface created 03:22:34: Vi1 VPDN: Clone from Vtemplate 3 03:22:36: Vi1 VPDN: Bind interface direction=2 Jun 30 05:13:21: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Virtual-Access1, changed state to up 03:22:36: Vi1 PPP: Treating connection as a dedicated line 03:22:36: Vi1 PPP: Phase is ESTABLISHING, Active Open [0 sess, 0 load] 03:22:36: Vi1 LCP: O CONFREQ [Closed] id 181 len 15 03:22:36: Vi1 LCP:AuthProto MS-CHAP (0x0305C22380) 03:22:36: Vi1 LCP:MagicNumber 0x6100C064 (0x05066100C064) 03:22:36: Vi1 VPDN: O out router# Jun 30 05:13:22: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Virtual-Access1 , changed state to up router# 03:22:38: Vi1 LCP: TIMEout: State REQsent 03:22:38: Vi1 LCP: O CONFREQ [REQsent] id 182 len 15 03:22:38: Vi1 LCP:AuthProto MS-CHAP (0x0305C22380) 03:22:38: Vi1 LCP:MagicNumber 0x6100C064 (0x05066100C064) 03:22:38: Vi1 VPDN: O out router# 03:22:40: Vi1 LCP: TIMEout: State REQsent 03:22:40: Vi1 LCP: O CONFREQ [REQsent] id 183 len 15 03:22:40: Vi1 LCP:AuthProto MS-CHAP (0x0305C22380) 03:22:40: Vi1 LCP:MagicNumber 0x6100C064 (0x05066100C064) 03:22:40: Vi1 VPDN: O out router# 03:22:42: Vi1 LCP: TIMEout: State REQsent 03:22:42: Vi1 LCP: O CONFREQ [REQsent] id 184 len 15 03:22:42: Vi1 LCP:AuthProto MS-CHAP (0x0305C22380) 03:22:42: Vi1 LCP:MagicNumber 0x6100C064 (0x05066100C064) 03:22:42: Vi1 VPDN: O out router# 03:22:44: Vi1 LCP: TIMEout: State REQsent 03:22:44: Vi1 LCP: O CONFREQ [REQsent] id 185 len 15 03:22:44: Vi1 LCP:AuthProto MS-CHAP (0x0305C22380) 03:22:44: Vi1 LCP:MagicNumber 0x6100C064 (0x05066100C064) 03:22:44: Vi1 VPDN: O out router# 03:22:46: Vi1 LCP: TIMEout: State REQsent 03:22:46: Vi1 LCP: O CONFREQ [REQsent] id 186 len 15 03:22:46: Vi1 LCP:AuthProto MS-CHAP (0x0305C22380) 03:22:46: Vi1 LCP:MagicNumber 0x6100C064 (0x05066100C064) 03:22:46: Vi1 VPDN: O out router# 03:22:48: Vi1 LCP: TIMEout: State REQsent 03:22:48: Vi1 LCP: O CONFREQ [REQsent] id 187 len 15 03:22:48: Vi1 LCP:AuthProto MS-CHAP (0x0305C22380) 03:22:48: Vi1 LCP:MagicNumber 0x6100C064 (0x05066100C064) 03:22:48: Vi1 VPDN: O out router# 03:22:50: Vi1 LCP: TIMEout: State REQsent 03:22:50: Vi1 LCP: O CONFREQ [REQsent] id 188 len 15 03:22:50: Vi1 LCP:AuthProto MS-CHAP (0x0305C22380) 03:22:50: Vi1 LCP:MagicNumber 0x6100C064 (0x05066100C064) 03:22:50: Vi1 VPDN: O out router# 03:22:52: Vi1 LCP: TIMEout: State REQsent 03:22:52: Vi1 LCP: O CONFREQ [REQsent] id 189 len 15 03:22:52: Vi1 LCP:AuthProto MS-CHAP (0x0305C22380) 03:22:52: Vi1 LCP:MagicNumber 0x6100C064 (0x05066100C064) 03:22:52: Vi1 VPDN: O out router# 03:22:54: Vi1 LCP: TIMEout: State REQsent 03:22:54: Vi1 LCP: O CONFREQ [REQsent] id 190 len 15 03:22:54: Vi1 LCP:AuthProto MS-CHAP (0x0305C22380) 03:22:54: Vi1 LCP:MagicNumber 0x6100C064 (0x05066100C064) 03:22:54: Vi1 VPDN: O out router# Jun 30 05:13:42: %TCP-2-INVALIDTCPENCAPS: Invalid TCB encaps pointer: 0x648D18 -Process= "PPTP Mgmt", ipl= 0, pid= 73 -Traceback= 33D39AE 33D4CEA 3CD688A 3CD6420 3CD6642 3CD53AC 3CD587C 3CD5B54 3CD5 C38 3CD5F88 Jun 30 05:13:42: %TCP-2-INVALIDTCPENCAPS: Invalid TCB encaps pointer: 0x648D18 -Process= "PPTP Mgmt", ipl= 0, pid= 73 -Traceback= 33D39AE 33D47CC 3CD4A06 3CD6656 3CD53AC 3CD587C 3CD5B54 3CD5C38 3CD5 F88 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10481&t=10481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
quest. for AAA / VPDN experts [7:10535]
I am trying to set up a L2F VPDN, using CiscoSecure for Windows (acting as a Radius server). I have yet to actually get the VPDN up. I believe that the problem has something to do with the Radius configuration on Ciscosecure. I say this because when I configure it as a Tacacs+ server, the VPDN settings all work perfectly. This indicates to me that the NAS and the home gateway are set up correctly, and Ciscosecure is set up correctly, when using Tacacs+. But when I shift everything to Radius (both the aaa settings on the router and the network settings on Ciscosecure), all hell breaks loose. Shift it back to Tacacs+, and everything is fine again. So, has anybody ever successfully done a VPDN using Radius (not just Ciscosecure, but any kind of Radius)? If so, could you just provide a walkthrough of how to do it - what AV pairs to use, etc.? Note, I am not interested in being pointed to a bunch of sample CCO configs, because I have already read them, and have copied them, and they seem not to work. I am interested in finding somebody who has actually done a VPDN w/Radius and can confirm that it works. Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10535&t=10535 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
weird PAP/CHAP problem with Windows Ciscosecure [7:10547]
I am trying to implement a Radius dial access configuration, using Ciscosecure 2.6 for Windows. I have noticed the following: When I set up my NaS and AAA server for radius, the client can only be properly authenticated with PAP. If I use chap, then apparently the NAS refuses to authenticate, and I constantly get a debug messages like "peer unable to authenticate" messages. This happens even though I have checked about a thousand times that the password is indeed correct, and that Ciscosecure has been configured to use the password for chap. As soon as I configure the dial client for PAP (not the NAS, but the client), everything immediately authenticates and works perfectly. This is really odd because if I switch CS and the NAS to speak Tacacs+, then the client can authenticate with chap perfectly. It is only when I use radius and client chap do I get this stupid problem. Has anybody ever seen this? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10547&t=10547 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can I turn off telnet but still allow SSH in? [7:10581]
Is there a way to bar telnet access to a router, but still allow SSH? If so, what are the commands? Thanx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10581&t=10581 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco Certifications still worth anything? [7:10599]
I first have to say that I agree with you in that I find very few CCIE's actually performing gritty hands-on work. So then you are probably wondering what is the whole point of working on your configuration and troubleshooting skills to become a CCIE, only to then become shunted into a position where those skills are rarely used? I have also thought long and hard about this phenomena. OK, I'm going to open a can of worms here, and go off on a bit of a tangent, but just bear with me. I believe that criticisms of the utility of industry certifications could also be said about the college degree. Sure, CCIE's are routinely put into high-level positions that involve little of the hands-on configuring and troubleshooting that is the very heart of the CCIE. But as we all know, many companies have positions that require job candidates to have a degree, but few of those positions actually require the knowledge of the exact subjects people learn in college. Would-be flamers, hear me out. Consider the average bachelor's degree. If it is in the humanities, you spent quite a bit of time studying various authors or artists, writing papers on literary and artistic criticism (the who, the what and the why of the artist/author and his work) and being exposed to various cultural schools of thought. If it was in a social science, then you most likely studied a lot of socio/political/economic theory and their application. If you studied a science or engineering, then high-level calculus was the order of the day, in terms of expressing events in mathematical terms. If it was computer science, then a whole lot of abstract programming theory. But regardless of what you studied, I think it is universally true that college graduates with whatever degree then plunge into their careers and rarely use the actual skills that they picked up in college. Barring those who have entered academia, how many times does the typical grad with an English degree get the opportunity to do an literary analysis of Elizabeth vs. Victorian poetry? How many real-world graduates of economics, in their day-to-day working life, actually have to whip out supply/demand curves and calculate marginal utility? Even the engineering graduates (historically one of the most applied of all the college subjects), how many times do they really have to derive out a 40-line thermodynamics multivariable calculus formula using just pencil and paper, and within 15 minutes? Ah but, college administrators and the pundits of education will stress, what make the college experience so valuable is not the subject matter per se, but rather the base level disciplining and training of the mind that is the ultimate goal. It is not the memorization of the political theories of Plato that is important, rather it is the improved cultural exposure, the openness to different philosophies, and the ability to conceive of and defend a particular thought. It is not the ability to quickly derive and calculate the eigenvectors of a linear algebra matrix that is important, rather it is the improved grasp and understanding of abstract concepts that is the real prize.In short, you college grads are hired not for the precise subject matter that they studied, but because they have demonstrated enhanced thought processes and the ability to quickly learn whatever skills they need for their career. Having said that, I believe that the CCIE is evolving into a similar role. CCIE's are prized by employers not because they can type a config for and troubleshoot a OSPF NBMA frame-relay network without using subinterfaces and while still electing a DR/BDR in less than an hour, typing at 150 words-per-minute. Rather they are prized because in the course of their study, they have substantially improved their knowledge of networking fundamentals and have developed a systematic and logical method of fixing problems. Now, some readers out there might take exception to the above paragraph and point out that there are some CCIE's who have developed more than a superficial knowledge of networking, and obtained their 4-digit-number just by memorizing a whole bunch of CCO configs. Of course I'm sure that has happened. Yet the same thing also happens with the college degree, but you hardly ever hear anybody complain about that. I think everybody college graduate has a story about somebody they knew who was admitted just because he could play a sport, or because Daddy donated a lot of money, or something like that. Then that person deliberately searched for and enrolled in the easiest possible subjects and undertook the easiest possible coursework (have you ever noticed how Division 1 college football and basketball players always seem to major in things like mass communications or hotel management?). But they graduate just like everybody else. And, on another tangent, I have noticed lots of people complain incessantly about the paper certificate - the paper MCSE, the paper
Re: Howard's new book [7:10735]
I would also like to volunteer to be a beta tester ""[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Nemeth)"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Howard, you have mentioned that you are working on a new book that > is aimed at ISPs. Is there a timeframe for this book? Do you need any > "beta testers"? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10739&t=10735 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ping replies [7:10910]
I have seen an 'E', but only with failed Appletalk pings, never in IP. Question (slightly off-topic, my apologies, Priscilla) - does anybody know exactly how Cisco implements ping and trace in non-IP protocols? With Appletalk, I presume it has something to do with AEP, but how about a IPX trace, what's going on there? Or a Decnet/Vines/Apollo/CLNS/XNS ping, what's up with those? ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > As we all know, ping is really an ICMP echo. There are many possible ICMP > replies. Now, Cisco could tell the user of the Cisco IOS ping command the > actual reply received, but instead they output a character code. (Wouldn't > want to make the product intuitive, now would we?) I'm trying to get more > data on the character codes. > > This is not a newbie question. Don't send me the chart of ping reply codes. > I've already seen about 20 versions of the chart. I'm trying to figure out > what routers really display and why there are so many versions of the > chart. Putting together all versions of the chart (plus the A code that we > have all seen but is not listed in Cisco documentation, as far as I can > tell), I have developed this list: > > ! An ICMP echo reply was received. > . The sending router or switch timed out while waiting for a reply. > U A destination unreachable response was received. > N A network unreachable response was received. > H A host unreachable response was received. > P A protocol unreachable response was received. > M Fragmentation was needed and the don't fragment (DF) bit was set. > & A time-to-live exceeded message was received. > I The user interrupted the test. > A The ping was administratively prohibited (blocked by an access list > probably). > Q A source quench response was received. > ? An unknown packet was received. > C A packet was received with the congestion-experienced bit set.** > > Questions: > > Has anyone ever seen N, H, or P? It seems to me that Cisco just outputs U > if the router receives network, host, or protocol unreachable. > > Has anyone ever seen M? I couldn't get this to happen in my lab. Is M even > for real or was that an error in one of the versions of the documentation? > > Has anyone every seen &? I couldn't get that one to happen either. > > How about I? That doesn't happen on my routers. Plus one version of the > documentation said it was |, not I. > > And how about the mysterious C? I found out that it's related to RFC 2481, > an experimental protocol that adds explicit congestion notification to IP. > Maybe some internal developer asked for this. Cisco clearly favors helping > developers troubleshoot over helping customers troubleshoot. (Sorry, but > this ping research has made me angry at Cisco.) > > Thanks for your help. > > Priscilla > > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10958&t=10910 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what exactly is "raw" telnet and "binary" telnet anyway? [7:11057]
Cisco terminal server materials refer to various high TCP ports to access various lines on the terminal server. For example, on a port 2000+x is the port to use for standard reverse telnet, where x is the line number, and 3000+x is the port to use to do reverse telnet to a rotary. But then there is another set of ports for "raw" telnet and "binary" telnet. Exactly what is raw telnet and binary telnet, and how do they differ from normal telnet? And when would you ever want to use these telnets as opposed to the normal telnet? Thanx for all replies. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11057&t=11057 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet Router? [7:33639]
But if all you're talking about is a branch router with 2 WAN links, do you really need to carry full BGP routes? Is it really that important to get optimum routing in this situation? In fact, I even doubt that you need 64MB of RAM for your BGP. Just have both ISP's hand you a default. Or perhaps a single BGP route from, say, UUnet, and then recursively point your default to that route ""Circusnuts_1999"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I was under the impression full Internet route tables required 128 Megs > of RAM, with 256 as the target build. The 7206s have up to 512 RAM > available in the NPE, as does the Juniper M5 (just to give a few good > examples of Internet routers). I have not fitted an Internet router in > @ least 6 months, but the last time I looked we were up to 120,000 > prefixes on the net. The 3640 can definitely handle the T-1 traffic > you're describing, but with BGP as the solution, I think you may want > something like a 3660 or 7204. I believe the max upgrade for the 3640 > it 128 and the 3660 is 256 (don't quote me :o) Also- the 3660 enters in > a little more redundancy, unless you had planned to 3640s. > > .02 > Phil > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Scott Nawalaniec > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Internet Router? [7:33639] > > Hello Everybody, > > I just want to run this by everyone for their input from experience. > > Scenario: > I'm looking for a Cisco router that will be providing Internet > connectivity > running BGP and that will be able to handle the capacity of 2 PTP T1's > to > the Internet. I know minimum RAM will have to be 64mbs for BGP routes. I > just want to know what people have tried that does and doesn't work. > > My choice would be a 3640 for future T1 expandability and/or a HSSI > port. > > Thank you for the input. > > Scott > _ > 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=33685&t=33639 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS based on OSPF (GSR platform) [7:34268]
It is my experience that the opaque LSA implementation on the GSR is riddled with weird errors, especially for inter-vendor operability, but also other key OSPF functionality (opaque LSA's sometimes don't get flooded properly, opaque LSA's were not properly refreshed, sometimes errors with checksums and sequence numbers, etc.). Some of the problems were fixed lately, but I still recommend sticking with ISIS. > ""Stephane LITKOWSKI"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hi all, > > > > I have to deploy MPLS based on OSPF as IGP, the backbone is build on Cisco > > 12000 GSRs (12008,12012 & 12016). I heard that MPLS over OSPF on GSR can > > cause some problems (ISIS is prefered as IGP ...) but I don't have details > > about these problems. Does anybody experienced bugs with this kind of > > environment ? > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > Stephane Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34276&t=34268 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS based on OSPF (GSR platform) [7:34268]
There are absolutely a lot of bugs and caveats on the 12000. Hence the popularity of the Juniper M40/M160. Service providers want a core router that doesn't spontaneously reboot every week or so. ""Chuck Larrieu"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > if you have a CCO login account, the following TAC link might be a good > place to start: > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/105/mpls_index.shtml > > I also did a quick search on "12000". Is it my imagination, or are there a > LOT of caveats / bugs on that device and it's cards? > > Chuck > > > ""Stephane LITKOWSKI"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hi all, > > > > I have to deploy MPLS based on OSPF as IGP, the backbone is build on Cisco > > 12000 GSRs (12008,12012 & 12016). I heard that MPLS over OSPF on GSR can > > cause some problems (ISIS is prefered as IGP ...) but I don't have details > > about these problems. Does anybody experienced bugs with this kind of > > environment ? > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > Stephane Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34275&t=34268 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WAN Switching [7:34035]
Exactly. You pretty much hit it right on the head - demand is so low that Cisco's decided that not only can it not support a CCIE program, it can't even support a CCNA program anymore. I don't want to be unduly harsh, as I believe all technologies ultimately have their proper place. But let's face it. The Stratacom acquisition basically sucked for Cisco. Sorry to put it so bluntly, as I know there are some Stratacom experts out there who will object, but you know in your hearts that it's true. Cisco hasn't put major development muscle into the Stratacom line ever since the last major hardware refresh, the MGX8850, which came out more than 2.5 years ago. Rumor has it that Cisco would really like to sell Stratacom off, the problem of course being finding a buyer. ""Paul Jin"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Also, the big question is, who is going to keep buying stratacom switches in > the future? > > If Cisco thought that the demand for this product was huge, I do not think > they would have cancelled the program. I have heard some reasons why the > CCIE track was cancelled was due to the fact that even people working on the > switches could not gain access to the equipment, just for the lab purpose. > But why cancel the NP/NA track. > > Probably, people that needed these boxes already have it. They already > either have more than they need for future expansion or since big chunk of > the customers were telcos, they are in bad financial shape or going out of > business. > > Lucky for me, I only got the the CCNA-Wan part before they cancelled the > program. I have other buddies that actually work on our backbone and they > went through to NP. And then it was cancelled. Now they are all studying > routers. > > - Paul Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34280&t=34035 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Additions to CCIE R&S lab [7:34136]
Aw come on, Brad. It's not a singular switch exam. What about the Token-ring switch? You know that Cisco added that thing to inject more realism into the lab. More seriously, I don't think you really need to have bigger, badder boxes. Just more of them. Honestly, there are a limited number of things you can do with 6 routers and 2-3 switches. Heck, it's been a very long time since I've worked on a production network that had that few boxes. Granted, those boxes on the exam are very 'busy'. But still, if you could get a network of, say, 20-25 boxes going, the exam would be a lot more realistic. Probably wouldn't cost you as much as a single 6500 IDS blade either. ""Brad Ellis"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I really dont think Cisco is going to add another switch to each rack. I > was under the impression they were trying to keep costs down for the CCIE > lab exam, not increase costs substantially. Maybe Im way off base here, can > anyone (or any proctor) that reads this let me know if I'm off base. > > I personally think it would be GREAT to have another switch or two in the > lab. After all, it is a ROUTING and SWITCHING certification, not a Routing > and Switch (singular) certification. :) > > Throw a couple of 12000's in there, add an IDS blade to the 6500, throw in a > bunch of layer 3 stuff with the 6500 and that would make for an interesting > lab, wouldnt it? > > thanks, > -Brad Ellis > CCIE#5796 (R&S / Security) > Network Learning Inc > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > used Cisco gear: www.optsys.net > CCIE Labs, racks, and classes: http://www.ccbootcamp.com/quicklinks.html > > ""Scott H."" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I have heard rumors of this, but no confirmation. I have a week to go and > > sure would like to know if this is something I need to worry about. > > > > ""Tauseef Nagi"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Cisco's europe office in Brussels, Begium. > > > > > > Tauseef > > > > > > ""Scott H."" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > source? > > > > > > > > ""Tauseef Nagi"" wrote in message > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Latest information coming out of Cisco regarding CCIE R&S lab is > that > > > > Cisco > > > > > will be adding more (complex) switching material to the lab > scenarios. > > > > This > > > > > will include two switches with routing engines, trunking between > > > switches, > > > > > pvlans, multicasting on switches, etc. > > > > > These new scenarios will began to appear in April of this year at > the > > > > > earliest(if not already being tested) and formalized by July of this > > > year. > > > > > Can anyone confirm this? > > > > > > > > > > Tauseef Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34282&t=34136 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WAN Switching [7:34035]
Actually I believe that WAN-switching is a tremendously useful skill, because it is difficult to commoditize the way that, say, IOS has been commoditized. A full discussion of this can rapidly degenerate into a bunch of economics supply and demand curves, but basically it's very difficult for some novice to really learn WAN-switching. There's a large barrier to entry. Anybody can just pick up a couple of routers off Ebay on the cheap, learn IOS, and then compete for a basic Cisco networking job. Try doing that with a couple of WAN-switches - it's basically a no-go. This serves as pretty good job security for the guys who know WAN-switching, as they don't have to put up with relentless commoditization of skills that the IOS guys do. On the other hand, if you want to learn Wan-switching, then why Stratacom? It is almost certainly better to learn, say, Lucent/Cascade or Nortel Wan-switching - something that has a higher shelf life. Anybody who's followed Stratacom should have noted that Cisco's support of the platform was lukewarm at best, and should therefore have seen the handwriting on the wall. While some of you might object to the above paragraph with a financial argument by pointing out the strong balance sheet of Cisco vs. the horrific ones of Lucent and Nortel, I believe that argument is neither here nor there. Sure, Cisco is doing well financially. But not Cisco Stratacom, which I'm sure is a drag on their bottom line. Conversely, while Lucent and Nortel are doing badly financially, their Wan-switching divisions are doing well (in fact, I believe Wan-switches are one of the few divisions that still generate decent profit). Lucent and Nortel therefore have had a much greater incentive to develop and promote their Wan-switches than Cisco has for Stratacom. ""Paul Jin"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Well, I think the earlier the stratacom experts agree, the better it is for > them. That is why my friends are all studying something else. Sure, when > the economy clears up, there might be some jobs doing wan switching but it > looks like most telcos over planned for both equipment and staff. So there > will be enough stratacom jobs > for a while but probably only for the people that are keeping their > positions. > > -paul > > nrf wrote: > > > > Exactly. You pretty much hit it right on the head - demand is > > so low that > > Cisco's decided that not only can it not support a CCIE > > program, it can't > > even support a CCNA program anymore. > > > > I don't want to be unduly harsh, as I believe all technologies > > ultimately > > have their proper place. But let's face it. The Stratacom > > acquisition > > basically sucked for Cisco. Sorry to put it so bluntly, as I > > know there are > > some Stratacom experts out there who will object, but you know > > in your > > hearts that it's true. Cisco hasn't put major development > > muscle into the > > Stratacom line ever since the last major hardware refresh, the > > MGX8850, > > which came out more than 2.5 years ago. Rumor has it that > > Cisco would > > really like to sell Stratacom off, the problem of course being > > finding a > > buyer. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34316&t=34035 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WAN Switching [7:34035]
Well, I subscribe to the theory that companies are much more accountable for their own performance within a market than they are for market-wide trends. Cerent and Ciena are therefore much less serious errors than Stratacom. What I mean by that is Cerent and Ciena (especially Cerent) were especially well-executed, albeit very expensive, strategies in that Cisco did successfully leverage their vaunted sales and marketing force to push those products. Cerent gear is a leading, if not the leading metro ADM solution in the world, and Ciena is perhaps the strongest pure-play optical vendor of all. It's just that the entire optical market has collapsed. In retrospect, it seems obvious that the optical market would collapse based on capacity utilization trends, so you could argue that Cisco should have predicted this and not gotten in, or at least have not paid so much to get in. But I don't think you can hold Cisco totally responsible. They did what they intended to do in that they finally got themselves a credible optical story. It's just that the whole optical market went in the toilet. Compare that to Stratacom, where Cisco achieved basically none of the goals it set out to do. I believe Stratacom has lost share every year since '98 or so. The TGX platform was cancelled more than 2.5 years ago, with nothing on the horizon to replace it, and the MGX 8850 is clearly no match for the latest stuff from the competition. The acquisition was poorly planned and poorly executed. From what I can tell, Cisco garnered basically none of the advantages it thought it would get from the acquisition. This is why Stratacom was such a poor move. Sure, not as bad as, say, Monterey (if they weren't going to use the ONS15900, why buy it?). But still pretty bad. ""Chuck Larrieu"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > might one presume that the Cerent acquisition and the Ciena > partnership/investment were considered the future directions in this area? > > Talk about buy high sell low. > > Chuck > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Exactly. You pretty much hit it right on the head - demand is so low that > > Cisco's decided that not only can it not support a CCIE program, it can't > > even support a CCNA program anymore. > > > > I don't want to be unduly harsh, as I believe all technologies ultimately > > have their proper place. But let's face it. The Stratacom acquisition > > basically sucked for Cisco. Sorry to put it so bluntly, as I know there > are > > some Stratacom experts out there who will object, but you know in your > > hearts that it's true. Cisco hasn't put major development muscle into > the > > Stratacom line ever since the last major hardware refresh, the MGX8850, > > which came out more than 2.5 years ago. Rumor has it that Cisco would > > really like to sell Stratacom off, the problem of course being finding a > > buyer. > > > > ""Paul Jin"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Also, the big question is, who is going to keep buying stratacom > switches > > in > > > the future? > > > > > > If Cisco thought that the demand for this product was huge, I do not > think > > > they would have cancelled the program. I have heard some reasons why > the > > > CCIE track was cancelled was due to the fact that even people working on > > the > > > switches could not gain access to the equipment, just for the lab > purpose. > > > But why cancel the NP/NA track. > > > > > > Probably, people that needed these boxes already have it. They already > > > either have more than they need for future expansion or since big chunk > of > > > the customers were telcos, they are in bad financial shape or going out > of > > > business. > > > > > > Lucky for me, I only got the the CCNA-Wan part before they cancelled the > > > program. I have other buddies that actually work on our backbone and > they > > > went through to NP. And then it was cancelled. Now they are all > studying > > > routers. > > > > > > - Paul Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34319&t=34035 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Long....RE: CCIE starting pay [7:33899]
I think everyone is missing the point. By far the most important reason to get the CCIE is to get a job (honestly, why else would you do it?). But the stark reality is that without proper experience, you are going to find the job market quite tough anyway, I don't care how many or what certs you got. Granted, certs like the CCIE will help, but they won't help nearly as much as people seem to think they will. Let's face facts, it's not 1999 anymore. Companies are no longer infatuated with the 4-digit number. You don't have stupid dotcoms throwing money around like drunken sailors, and because of the changes in the Cisco Partnership agreements, you don't have all these Partners running around desperately trying to fill their CCIE quotas. Now, every company who's looking to hire a network engineer will inquire about your experience. Believe me, talking about all the time you spent in a home-lab is definitely not the answer they're looking for. Now I know that I'm probably not going to convince anybody otherwise. I've ran into some of these no-experience CCIE-wannabe fanatics in real-life and I've never been able to convince any of them to see the light. Like Fox Mulder, 'They want to believe'. They just want to believe that all their life's problems will be solved just by passing an (admittedly hard) exam. All I have to say is - go ahead, see for yourself, learn the hard way. Just don't say I didn't warn you. ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > After receiving an email from Joe, I would agree that he sounds like a > very intelligent person with tremendous initiative. I'd like to > differentiate between lab experience and OTJ experience. > > Learning to configure OSPF, EIGRP, and BGP at home is one thing. > > Going to a customer site who has 200 nodes, half of which were acquired > from another company and are running OSPF while half are running EIGRP > and all areas need to be able to communicate with each other and also > have multiple redundant and area-diverse connections to different > internet providers using BGP...that is experience. :-) > > Then, after a decision has been made to use a single IGP, make a choice > between EIGRP and OSPF, or even IS-IS. Justify your reasoning and then > determine a migration plan that minimizes customer downtime and > guarantees that all areas have internet access at all times even if > their local provider goes down. > > Help the customer to coordinate with ARIN and service providers to get > the necessary address space and an assigned autonomous system number. > > When a given area has multiple connections to the same ISP, attempt to > influence routing in the ISP so that it takes the closest entrance into > your network for that user. Attempt to influence routing within each > ISP so that you increase the chances that optimal routing will occur. > Make certain that you only advertise the necessary prefixes while > filtering all others. Configure routing within each area to take the > closet exit possible, within reason. > > Provision and order the necessary circuits after getting quotes from > several providers. Make a determination when and if point to point > links could/should be used and where frame relay or ATM would be most > suitable. Make sure that you have plenty of room for growth and enough > bandwidth to support video conferencing over IP for certain sections of > this network. Determine which type of traffic shaping, queueing, and/or > rate limiting might be necessary and where it would be most useful. > > Upgrade routers and switches as necessary, making sure that you won't > run into processor limitations during high traffic loads and you have > enough WIC and NM slots available to support the connections you > require. Make sure you select an IOS that supports those modules and > software features you'll needwhile minimizing the number of bugs > that might affect you. > > Determine a backup plan for each area and include ISDN backup links, > making sure the backup links can pass both IP, IPX, and some DLSw+ but > do not pass streaming video and other non-essential traffic. Create a > network infrastructure disaster recovery plan for each area and document > your procedures. > > And that's just the tip of the iceberg, and *that's* what I mean by > experience. Certainly, your experience doesn't need to be this > comprehensive and detailed, I'm simply exaggerating to make a point. > There is a *huge* difference between learning to configure this stuff at > home and actually implementing it in the real world. > > Granted, this would be a huge task but it's one that a CCIE along with > a group of engineers would be expected to be able to handle. A > CCIE--even a highly intelligent and motivated one--with no experience > would have difficulty with this. > > John > > >>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" 2/4/02 10:23:37 AM >>> > I have to jump in here. The original post said he had an impressiv
Re: Long....RE: CCIE starting pay [7:33899]
If I may ask, why exactly is it a good thing that people can pass the lab with just books, lab gear, and groupstudy, without ever having touched a production network in his life? This kind of thing is precisely the enabler of all these lab-rat CCIE's that are starting to seriously water down the prestige of the program. ""Keyur Shah"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > To add onto it...experience helps you support such networks and high profile > web sites and enterprise networks in real time, where downtime is counted in > minutes and sometimes in seconds. It is impossible to do clear ip bgp * and > get your bgp routes which one may do all the time while preparing in a home > lab. > > In my personal opinion, today it is possible to pass ccie lab by simply > studying in home lab with all the help from books, lab workbooks, bootcamps, > home lab and group studies out there, which is very good thing. I am sure, > it was not the case in 1998 when Paul B. (taking him as a example only) > passed his test. I think cisco should remove some of the old technologies > from the lab and add some of these cool real world scenarios to a reasobale > extent that John mentioned below. May be have candidates log to syslog and > ask them that they can not type clear ip bgp more than twice in the whole > lab. That will make candidates think from real world angle. That is just an > example, many such things come to mind. > > Impressive article John, you described ccie's day in real world very well. > > -Keyur Shah- > CCIE# 4799 (Security; Routing and Switching) > css1,scsa,scna,mct,mcse,cni,mcne > Hello Computers > "Say Hello to Your Future!" > http://www.hellocomputers.com > Toll-Free: 1.877.794.3556 > "Now offering CCIE Security Lab Workbook and remote bootcamp, > http://www.hellocomputers.com/hellosuccess.html"; > > -Original Message- > From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:25 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: LongRE: CCIE starting pay [7:33899] > > > After receiving an email from Joe, I would agree that he sounds like a very > intelligent person with tremendous initiative. I'd like to differentiate > between lab experience and OTJ experience. > > Learning to configure OSPF, EIGRP, and BGP at home is one thing. > > Going to a customer site who has 200 nodes, half of which were acquired from > another company and are running OSPF while half are running EIGRP and all > areas need to be able to communicate with each other and also have multiple > redundant and area-diverse connections to different internet providers using > BGP...that is experience. :-) > > Then, after a decision has been made to use a single IGP, make a choice > between EIGRP and OSPF, or even IS-IS. Justify your reasoning and then > determine a migration plan that minimizes customer downtime and guarantees > that all areas have internet access at all times even if their local > provider goes down. > > Help the customer to coordinate with ARIN and service providers to get the > necessary address space and an assigned autonomous system number. > > When a given area has multiple connections to the same ISP, attempt to > influence routing in the ISP so that it takes the closest entrance into your > network for that user. Attempt to influence routing within each ISP so that > you increase the chances that optimal routing will occur. > Make certain that you only advertise the necessary prefixes while filtering > all others. Configure routing within each area to take the closet exit > possible, within reason. > > Provision and order the necessary circuits after getting quotes from several > providers. Make a determination when and if point to point links > could/should be used and where frame relay or ATM would be most suitable. > Make sure that you have plenty of room for growth and enough bandwidth to > support video conferencing over IP for certain sections of this network. > Determine which type of traffic shaping, queueing, and/or rate limiting > might be necessary and where it would be most useful. > > Upgrade routers and switches as necessary, making sure that you won't run > into processor limitations during high traffic loads and you have enough WIC > and NM slots available to support the connections you require. Make sure > you select an IOS that supports those modules and software features you'll > needwhile minimizing the number of bugs that might affect you. > > Determine a backup plan for each area and include ISDN backup links, making > sure the backup links can pass both IP, IPX, and some DLSw+ but do not pass > streaming video and other non-essential traffic. Create a network > infrastructure disaster recovery plan for each area and document your > procedures. > > And that's just the tip of the iceberg, and *that's* what I mean by > experience. Certainly, your experience doesn't need to be this > comprehensive and detailed, I'm simply exa
Re: OSPF Stud areas [7:34375]
I don't know where the hell this myth got started that only Cisco can do totally-stubby areas. Must be one of those stupid study guides out there. In actual fact, most vendors now offer totally-stubby areas. ""s vermill"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > All routers must agree on stub status. But a standard stub area only > filters external routes. All other inter-area routes still make it in. I > believe that totally stubby areas are a Cisco proprietary implementation. > However, only the ABR attaching to area 0 needs the 'area stub no-summary' > command. All others just need the 'area stub' command. So you might get > away with a totally stubby area even though you aren't purely Cisco. > Incidentally, I have no idea who is implementing those "stud areas" but it > sure sounds interesting. > > Debbie Westall wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > I have the following scenario: > > > > area 0 (backbone) > > | > > | > > | > > area 20 (stub network) (these are RiverStone MLSs) > > | > > | > > uBR routers (static routing) > > > > I would like to set up OSPF between the Riverstones and the > > Cisco uBRs. We thought to set up the uBRs as stub networks > > also, but we are seeing the full OSPF routing table on the uBRs > > (which are already running high utilization). We would only > > like to see the default route on the uBRs. So would we need to > > set these up as NSSA or Totally stubby? Or should we create a > > "new" area and make that a stub of the existing area 20? We > > have experimented with filtering and we are able to filter out > > everything but the default, but I don't think we should have to > > do that either. > > > > Right now our lab equipment is in the process of being moved to > > our new building so I can't program this up right now to test. > > > > Thanks for the assist!!! > > > > Debbie Westall Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34735&t=34375 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS and VPN Architectures book [7:34792]
The book is all-right, it's not great. It's OK as an intro book to the subject. Unfortunately many of the more complex topics in later chapters are written in such garbled way as to be almost unintelligible, particularly some of the 'carrier of carrier' and 'Internet access' stuff, and those are precisely the topics that need to be as clear as possible because of their complexity. I swear, some of the grammar is so convuleted that the only way to really understand everything in those chapters is to already know it in the first place, but then if you already know it, why are you reading the book at all? The book is also missing any mention of probably the most important reason to use MPLS at all: traffic-engineering. Unfortunately there is no really good Cisco book about this subject (it is covered briefly in IP Quality of Service, but not in any serious depth). The best stuff I've ever found on TE is, ahem, Juniper course material. But like I said, a decent intro book on the subject. ""Caplan M"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I'm reading it and so far I'm pleased with it. I haven't got to the VPN > stuff yet though, but its given me a good grounging in tag switching and MPLS. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34940&t=34792 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco exams are too easy??? [7:34923]
Well, now you know why so many people think all the Cisco written certs are not very valuable at all. Only the CCIE (the lab) continues to hold reasonable weight, and even that has been tarnished to some degree by all these bootcamps and such. > -Original Message- > From: mike johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 4:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: OT: Cisco exams are too easy??? [7:34923] > > > Hi All, > I took the Cisco PIX CSPFA exam yesterday and I was > suprised to find out that my score is 970/1000. I've > never worked with any type of firewalls let alone PIX > Firewall. I read the CSPFA book and borrowed the > materials from a friend of mine who went to global > knowledge training a few weeks earlier. I am very > disappointed with the exam. I don't think anyone like > > myself should be able to pass the exam that easily. > > I thought yesterday's test score was a fluke so this > morning I went and took the MCNS exam and I got a > score > of 960/1000. I was completely shocked. A few hours, > I > decide to sign up for the CCIE written exam. > Amazingly > I passed with a score of 92/100 That is unbelievable. > To pass the exam for someone like myself really > de-value the prestige of Cisco Certification by some > bookworms like me. Cisco, after all, should make the > exam a lot harder than the way it is now. > > Anyone care to comment on this. > > Mike Johnson > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! > http://greetings.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34939&t=34923 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS and VPN Architectures book [7:34792]
The latest JunOS IJNR (Intro to Juniper Networks Routers) material give a better overview of basic MPLS than any of the Ciscopress books. For a really really really good understanding of TE, check out the JunOS Advanced MPLS course stuff. For a strong in-depth discussion of all manners of MPLS VPN's, check out the JunOS Advanced VPN's materials. However, if you want to study this stuff, I would advise you to wait until Juniper updates its training materials. JunOS 5.2 just came out, with a bevy of kickass MPLS features, and you should wait until the courses have been updated to include these features. For example, Martini-draft L2VPN's have just been implemented in JunOS. What is ironic is that IOS can also do Martini VPN's (on the 6500/7600) but there is nary a mention of it anywhere on the Cisco website besides stupid marketing papers. ""Sean Knox"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Heh, that's pretty ironic the book doesn't go into depth about traffic > engineering... um hello? Oh well. Which books out of the Juniper course > material go over MPLS? > > - Sean > > -Original Message- > From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MPLS and VPN Architectures book [7:34792] > > > The book is all-right, it's not great. It's OK as an intro book to the > subject. Unfortunately many of the more complex topics in later chapters > are written in such garbled way as to be almost unintelligible, particularly > some of the 'carrier of carrier' and 'Internet access' stuff, and those are > precisely the topics that need to be as clear as possible because of their > complexity. I swear, some of the grammar is so convuleted that the only > way to really understand everything in those chapters is to already know it > in the first place, but then if you already know it, why are you reading the > book at all? > > The book is also missing any mention of probably the most important reason > to use MPLS at all: traffic-engineering. Unfortunately there is no really > good Cisco book about this subject (it is covered briefly in IP Quality of > Service, but not in any serious depth). The best stuff I've ever found on > TE is, ahem, Juniper course material. > > But like I said, a decent intro book on the subject. > > > > ""Caplan M"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I'm reading it and so far I'm pleased with it. I haven't got to the VPN > > stuff yet though, but its given me a good grounging in tag switching and > MPLS. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34964&t=34792 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
This is going to sound fairly cutthroat and antisocial, but one of the best ways to judge whether a particular career has staying power is to see just how easy it is to become qualified. Was it easy for you to learn the skill - i.e. did it require little financial investment or not much study time, or whatever? If it was easy for you, then it's probably easy for other people also, and inevitably the forces of commoditization will hit you hard. On the other hand, if a particular position requires endless years of schooling (like a medical doctor), requires that you have a degree from an Ivy League college, or requires experience with extremely expensive and rare pieces of equipment, then that job stands a much better chance of maintaining its worth, because the simple fact is that if you happen to have those particular qualities in question, then it is difficult to find somebody to replace you with. You have to look at the barriers to entry, because that's what allows you to maintain your value. Companies, under the profit motive, love to replace expensive people with cheap people, and ideally would love to pay everybody minimum wage, or even less by just moving the job offshore where the labor is cheap. So if you want to maintain a decent wage, you will constantly have to show that you cannot be easily replaced. You have to show that you have a set of skills that few others (ideally nobody else) have. ""s vermill"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > When I was in high school (vocational) studying to be an electronic repair > technician, I thought I would retire from that job a very wealthy man. Two > realities caught up with me and the rest of that career field pretty > quickly. First, the throw away revolution. Second, a bloated job market > (DeVry was as common as McDonalds for a while there). I'm glad I didn't > mortgage the farm on a degree in that field. The Navy was kind enough to > give me a "free" education instead. I guess if you have a perfect job, you > had better start looking for the next one. > > > AMR wrote: > > > > Something I have noticed with clients is that they have laid > > off too deep > > and then end up having to use jr. staff or rehire staff with > > the same > > constrained budget to manage their systems and network. As a > > result these > > companies are still running their networks but with less > > qualified staff at > > much lower wages. It seems great at first but these companies > > will come to > > their senses when their network falls apart. But I hear your > > frustration. > > > > You also have to understand that MASSIVE number of people > > rushing into the > > networking/IT job market. It's simple economics. The more > > people that come > > into the sector, the fewer the jobs, and the lower the wages. > > If you are > > old enough to recall or study historical data this has happened > > to several > > job sectors in the past. The last I recall reading about was > > the jet > > mechanics in the commercial airline industry. Not a lot of > > highly skilled > > people available so those that were qualified were writing > > their own > > tickets. Eventually more people were lured into that skillset > > with the > > amount of money they saw. The jobs became fewer and the > > salaries lowered as > > a result and then the airlines hit a few down periods and that > > killed the > > massive interest in being an airline mechanic. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35692&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Most indications seem to be that the networking industry, and the telco/provider segment in particular will greatly lag any general economic recovery. Nobody is predicting a serious telecom recovery this year, and many economists don't even predict one next year. Many big names have already gone down - Exodus, Excite@home, GlobalCrossing - and others are playing serious defense - Level3, MCIWorldcom, AT&T, Qwest. Huge debt payments continue to hang over the industry, and that problem won't be cleared up anytime soon. One dirty little secret of the provider industry is that very few providers actually make consistent profit on a true cash-flow basis. Just like the dotcoms, the providers can't figure out how to wring a decent amount of profit out from the Internet either. Sure, many providers will claim pro-forma profits, but after the Enron catastrophe, nobody wants to see pro-forma numbers, correctly preferring real cash-flow numbers. But all this talk might be a case of fiddling while Rome burns. All this talk of a future recovery in the long run doesn't really help anybody right now. Like the macro-economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the long run, we're all dead". Specifically, discussion of decent job prospects in the future doesn't exactly help a guy who needs to pay the bills now. ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It's the economy. When it picks up, so will the jobs. > ""saktown"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not (probably > not), > > but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these networks that > > need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the industry can > > be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of complex > > networks to maintain. > > > > The fallacy in that logic is that in reality the number of networks, and > > their complexity, has indeed gone down in absolute terms. While the > > enterprise space still continues to maintain lukewarm demand, the > > telco/provider segment is nothing less than a disaster of epic > proportions. > > I would contend that for every new box requisitioned by an enterprise, > > another 2 or 3 have been decommissioned by a dying provider. Check out > the > > latest auction of Cisco gear from Excite@Home as a poignant example. > > Furthermore, much of the growth in the enterprise space requires very > little > > skill to set up (i.e. install a single router to connect to an ISP), > whereas > > provider networks tend to be tremendously complicated, therefore requiring > > great expertise to maintain, but of course now there is no more provider > > network to maintain. Hence, you have lots of highly skilled network dudes > > who got laid off from providers who are now competing for jobs running > > networks for enterprises. > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "John Green" > > > To: > > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:16 AM > > > Subject: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] > > > > > > > > > > seems all jobs have just vanished. well then who runs > > > > the networks and equipment ? it's real bad out there > > > > in the job market. > > > > any web sites to put the resume ? seems dice, monster, > > > > headhunter are not producing any results. > > > > > > > > how long is this goind to last ? > > > > > > > > __ > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > > > > http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35751&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
For example, here is just one study from today: http://news.com.com/2009-1033-839335.html ""nrf"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Most indications seem to be that the networking industry, and the > telco/provider segment in particular will greatly lag any general economic > recovery. Nobody is predicting a serious telecom recovery this year, and > many economists don't even predict one next year. Many big names have > already gone down - Exodus, Excite@home, GlobalCrossing - and others are > playing serious defense - Level3, MCIWorldcom, AT&T, Qwest. Huge debt > payments continue to hang over the industry, and that problem won't be > cleared up anytime soon. > > One dirty little secret of the provider industry is that very few providers > actually make consistent profit on a true cash-flow basis. Just like the > dotcoms, the providers can't figure out how to wring a decent amount of > profit out from the Internet either. Sure, many providers will claim > pro-forma profits, but after the Enron catastrophe, nobody wants to see > pro-forma numbers, correctly preferring real cash-flow numbers. > > But all this talk might be a case of fiddling while Rome burns. All this > talk of a future recovery in the long run doesn't really help anybody right > now. Like the macro-economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the long > run, we're all dead". Specifically, discussion of decent job prospects in > the future doesn't exactly help a guy who needs to pay the bills now. > > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > It's the economy. When it picks up, so will the jobs. > > ""saktown"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not (probably > > not), > > > but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these networks > that > > > need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the industry > can > > > be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of complex > > > networks to maintain. > > > > > > The fallacy in that logic is that in reality the number of networks, > and > > > their complexity, has indeed gone down in absolute terms. While the > > > enterprise space still continues to maintain lukewarm demand, the > > > telco/provider segment is nothing less than a disaster of epic > > proportions. > > > I would contend that for every new box requisitioned by an enterprise, > > > another 2 or 3 have been decommissioned by a dying provider. Check out > > the > > > latest auction of Cisco gear from Excite@Home as a poignant example. > > > Furthermore, much of the growth in the enterprise space requires very > > little > > > skill to set up (i.e. install a single router to connect to an ISP), > > whereas > > > provider networks tend to be tremendously complicated, therefore > requiring > > > great expertise to maintain, but of course now there is no more provider > > > network to maintain. Hence, you have lots of highly skilled network > dudes > > > who got laid off from providers who are now competing for jobs running > > > networks for enterprises. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "John Green" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:16 AM > > > > Subject: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems all jobs have just vanished. well then who runs > > > > > the networks and equipment ? it's real bad out there > > > > > in the job market. > > > > > any web sites to put the resume ? seems dice, monster, > > > > > headhunter are not producing any results. > > > > > > > > > > how long is this goind to last ? > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > > > > > http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35753&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
They say misery loves company. Well, for what it's worth: http://news.com.com/2100-1017-832553.html Dude has an engineering degree from a respected school and an MBA and is tossing mail for the post office for $13 an hour. A former marketing manager is stocking shelves. Another guy with master's degrees from Columbia and Harvard is doing lawn-care work (forklifts, fertizilier, etc.) . Even more poignantly, a dude with computer and networking certifications (doesn't specify what kind of certs) now has the hazardous job of clearing crud in an oil refinery coker unit. ""s vermill"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > When I was in high school (vocational) studying to be an electronic repair > technician, I thought I would retire from that job a very wealthy man. Two > realities caught up with me and the rest of that career field pretty > quickly. First, the throw away revolution. Second, a bloated job market > (DeVry was as common as McDonalds for a while there). I'm glad I didn't > mortgage the farm on a degree in that field. The Navy was kind enough to > give me a "free" education instead. I guess if you have a perfect job, you > had better start looking for the next one. > > > AMR wrote: > > > > Something I have noticed with clients is that they have laid > > off too deep > > and then end up having to use jr. staff or rehire staff with > > the same > > constrained budget to manage their systems and network. As a > > result these > > companies are still running their networks but with less > > qualified staff at > > much lower wages. It seems great at first but these companies > > will come to > > their senses when their network falls apart. But I hear your > > frustration. > > > > You also have to understand that MASSIVE number of people > > rushing into the > > networking/IT job market. It's simple economics. The more > > people that come > > into the sector, the fewer the jobs, and the lower the wages. > > If you are > > old enough to recall or study historical data this has happened > > to several > > job sectors in the past. The last I recall reading about was > > the jet > > mechanics in the commercial airline industry. Not a lot of > > highly skilled > > people available so those that were qualified were writing > > their own > > tickets. Eventually more people were lured into that skillset > > with the > > amount of money they saw. The jobs became fewer and the > > salaries lowered as > > a result and then the airlines hit a few down periods and that > > killed the > > massive interest in being an airline mechanic. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35752&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
d and took out the garbage. No company would > > stay in business that way. This dosen't mean that their services weren't > > wanted. Most every home who has a dial-up, most buisinesses that don't > have > > DSL in their area are still waiting for the right company/technology to > come > > by and at the right price. There's still a pretty large demand for > > high-speed internet. Now we just have to wait for the right technology to > > come by and offer good service at a good price. > > > > There is also another problem that was just as bad - the market was > flooded > > with service providers. There was WAY too much supply and only moderatre > > demand. > > > > I still see plenty of growth in this industry, even excluding the service > > provider market. > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > For example, here is just one study from today: > > > > > > http://news.com.com/2009-1033-839335.html > > > > > > > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Most indications seem to be that the networking industry, and the > > > > telco/provider segment in particular will greatly lag any general > > economic > > > > recovery. Nobody is predicting a serious telecom recovery this year, > > and > > > > many economists don't even predict one next year. Many big names ha ve > > > > already gone down - Exodus, Excite@home, GlobalCrossing - and others > are > > > > playing serious defense - Level3, MCIWorldcom, AT&T, Qwest. Huge > debt > > > > payments continue to hang over the industry, and that problem won't be > > > > cleared up anytime soon. > > > > > > > > One dirty little secret of the provider industry is that very few > > > providers > > > > actually make consistent profit on a true cash-flow basis. Just like > the > > > > dotcoms, the providers can't figure out how to wring a decent amount > of > > > > profit out from the Internet either. Sure, many providers will > claim > > > > pro-forma profits, but after the Enron catastrophe, nobody wants to > see > > > > pro-forma numbers, correctly preferring real cash-flow numbers. > > > > > > > > But all this talk might be a case of fiddling while Rome burns. All > > this > > > > talk of a future recovery in the long run doesn't really help anybody > > > right > > > > now. Like the macro-economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the > > long > > > > run, we're all dead". Specifically, discussion of decent job > prospects > > in > > > > the future doesn't exactly help a guy who needs to pay the bills now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > It's the economy. When it picks up, so will the jobs. > > > > > ""saktown"" wrote in message > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > > I don't know if this is going to make you feel better or not > > (probably > > > > > not), > > > > > > but anyways it is not strictly true that there are all these > > networks > > > > that > > > > > > need to be maintained. A lot of people have wondered how the > > industry > > > > can > > > > > > be laying all these people off if there are a constant number of > > > complex > > > > > > networks to maintain. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fallacy in that logic is that in reality the number of > > networks, > > > > and > > > > > > their complexity, has indeed gone down in absolute terms. While > > the > > > > > > enterprise space still continues to maintain lukewarm demand, the > > > > > > telco/provider segment is nothing less than a disaster of epic > > > > > proportions. > > > > > > I would contend that for every new box requisitioned by an > > enterprise, > > > > > > another 2 or 3 have been decommissioned by a dying provider. > Check > > > o
Re: Network jobs in Dallas, TX? [7:35608]
While I don't live in Texas, I would imagine that there would indeed be lots of unemployed network guys hanging around Dallas, due to the proximity of Telecom Alley, and the implosion of the telecom industr. ""AMR"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Get in line. There's hundreds in line in front of you with similar skills. > > > ""ME"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I'm new to the Dallas area and recently laid-off. I was wondering if > folks > > here knew of anyone looking for somebody with 10 years network exp. and a > > CCIE in the Dallas area? If so please reply. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mark Egan, CCIE #8775 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35808&t=35608 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > That article taked about 1 problem, the problem almost every company had - > grabing too much land and equipment with no customers or sustainable > revenue. But that's also the problem every dot-bomb had. Thankfully the > buble burst, the madness ended and took out the garbage. No company would > stay in business that way. This dosen't mean that their services weren't > wanted. Most every home who has a dial-up, most buisinesses that don't have > DSL in their area are still waiting for the right company/technology to come > by and at the right price. I'm afraid I have to disagree. The simple fact is that in many cases, the services were in fact not wanted, at least at the price points they were offered at, but then of course if they were offered at lower price points, there would have been even less profit than there already was. And the fact is, despite all the hype from New Economy providers, there is not a huge outcry of demand for high-speed access. There is some demand, but nowhere near the demand that a lot of people thought there would be. I used to believe otherwise. Because I'm always doing stuff on the Net, and therefore I rely on my broadband, I assumed that there must have been ravenous demand for broadband connections. I assumed that everybody was like me. Wrongo. The fact is that there is only a small subset of the population that is tech and computer savvy and can honestly feel the difference between a broadband link and standard dialup, certainly enough that they would feel the need to pay extra for broadband. The numbers say otherwise. In the past, broadband was not widely available, but not this is not so. It is estimated that well over 70% of households within the US have access to some kind of broadband (cable/DSL/satellite/fixed wireless). (70% of all U.S. households have access to high-speed cable, and I'm not even talking about the other kinds of broadband - http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/broadband/comments2/Napster.htm, ) Yet a sobering fact is that even where broadband is available, consumer demand has been low: "...even where there is deployment of broadband infrastructure, there has been low consumer uptake...Groups such as the Consumer Energy Council of America and the National Cable Television Association have also noted the slow uptake of consumer use of DSL and cable modems even where currently deployed." http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/content/stories/index.cfm?key=10 Perhaps the most sobering is the Hart/Winston study that states: ' "The bottom line is that among people who are most likely to subscribe to high-speed Internet access, the obstacles are price and lack of appeal," said Hart, CEO of Hart Research. "Forty-eight percent have no interest regardless of price and another 21 percent are willing to pay at most $20 per month. If you cannot win over the people who are currently using the Internet, consumer acceptance of high-speed access will be slow and limited..." ' http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html If you still need convincing, then flip things around. If there really is this huge groundswell of demand for broadband access, then ..."...why have only 10 percent of those with access to broadband purchased it?" (http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s=916&a=19232,00.asp). In the United States, basic phone uptake rates are at 99% or so, basic cable TV is about 70%, uptake, digital cable TV is about 25% uptake, and cellphone uptake is at least 25% (uptake defined to be those people who can get who choose to get it). So why is broadband uptake so low. You would think that if people were beating down the doors for broadband, that uptake would be much much higher than it is.Or, as Stephen Ricchetti said it best: "Overwhelmingly, people think it's a bad deal at current costs," Ricchetti said. "What we are looking at is a demand issue, not a supply issue" http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s=916&a=19232,00.asp The simple fact is, the demand is not really there. The vast majority of people (generally high-income, tech-savvy people) who want high-speed access already have it. The majority of the population is not like this, and for whatever reason do not see a whole lot of value in high-speed. Is this a price thing - is it just too expensive? Maybe (but according to Hart/Winston, when 48% of people currently without broadband express no interest in it, and another 21% will not pay more than what they pay for dialup, maybe price is not the issue - http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html). Or is it a problem with perception and marketing? Or both? Who knows? Another depressing snippet from Hart/Winston: "...Other data show that while the majority believed some form of Internet access should be available in all parts of the country, relatively few users (30 percent) place a high priority on ensuring tha
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > That article taked about 1 problem, the problem almost every company had - > grabing too much land and equipment with no customers or sustainable > revenue. But that's also the problem every dot-bomb had. Thankfully the > buble burst, the madness ended and took out the garbage. No company would > stay in business that way. This dosen't mean that their services weren't > wanted. Most every home who has a dial-up, most buisinesses that don't have > DSL in their area are still waiting for the right company/technology to come > by and at the right price. I'm afraid I have to disagree. The simple fact is that in many cases, the services were in fact not wanted, at least at the price points they were offered at, but then of course if they were offered at lower price points, there would have been even less profit than there already was. And the fact is, despite all the hype from New Economy providers, there is not a huge outcry of demand for high-speed access. There is some demand, but nowhere near the demand that a lot of people thought there would be. I used to believe otherwise. Because I'm always doing stuff on the Net, and therefore I rely on my broadband, I assumed that there must have been ravenous demand for broadband connections. I assumed that everybody was like me. Wrongo. The fact is that there is only a small subset of the population that is tech and computer savvy and can honestly feel the difference between a broadband link and standard dialup, certainly enough that they would feel the need to pay extra for broadband. The numbers bear this out. In the past, broadband was not widely available, but not this is not so. It is estimated that well over 70% of households within the US have access to some kind of broadband (cable/DSL/satellite/fixed wireless). (70% of all U.S. households have access to high-speed cable, and I'm not even talking about the other kinds of broadband - http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/broadband/comments2/Napster.htm, ) Yet a sobering fact is that even where broadband is available, consumer demand has been low: "...even where there is deployment of broadband infrastructure, there has been low consumer uptake...Groups such as the Consumer Energy Council of America and the National Cable Television Association have also noted the slow uptake of consumer use of DSL and cable modems even where currently deployed." http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/content/stories/index.cfm?key=10 Perhaps the most sobering is the Hart/Winston study that states: ' "The bottom line is that among people who are most likely to subscribe to high-speed Internet access, the obstacles are price and lack of appeal," said Hart, CEO of Hart Research. "Forty-eight percent have no interest regardless of price and another 21 percent are willing to pay at most $20 per month. If you cannot win over the people who are currently using the Internet, consumer acceptance of high-speed access will be slow and limited..." ' http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html If you still need convincing, then flip things around. If there really is this huge groundswell of demand for broadband access, then ..."...why have only 10 percent of those with access to broadband purchased it?" (http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s=916&a=19232,00.asp). In the United States, basic phone uptake rates are at 99% or so, basic cable TV is about 70%, uptake, digital cable TV is about 25% uptake, and cellphone uptake is at least 25% (uptake defined to be those people who can get who choose to get it). So why is broadband uptake so low? You would think that if people were beating down the doors for broadband, that uptake would be much much higher than it is.Or, as Stephen Ricchetti said it best: "Overwhelmingly, people think it's a bad deal at current costs," Ricchetti said. "What we are looking at is a demand issue, not a supply issue" http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s=916&a=19232,00.asp The simple fact is, the demand is not really there. The vast majority of people (generally high-income, tech-savvy people) who want high-speed access already have it. The majority of the population is not like this, and for whatever reason do not see a whole lot of value in high-speed. Is this a price thing - is it just too expensive? Maybe (but according to Hart/Winston, when 48% of people currently without broadband express no interest in it, and another 21% will not pay more than what they pay for dialup, maybe price is not the issue - http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html). Or is it a problem with perception and marketing? Or both? Who knows? Another depressing snippet from Hart/Winston: "...Other data show that while the majority believed some form of Internet access should be available in all parts of the country, relatively few users (30 percent) place a high priority on ensuring tha
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
t while the majority believed some form of Internet access should be available in all parts of the country, relatively few users (30 percent) place a high priority on ensuring that all Americans have access to high-speed service. In fact, more respondents (32 percent) rated this a low priority." > Now we just have to wait for the right technology to > come by and offer good service at a good price. I'm can't deny that things like Moore's law implies continual advances. But from what the above studies have shown, we might be waiting around for awhile. The consumers have spoken - the majority of them are perfectly happy with dial and do not want more than that, certainly not at higher cost.After all, dial has one gigantic advantage over broadband - dial is simply more reliable. " "A new technology that decreases reliability and uptime isn't "technologically advanced" - it's buggy. Outside of early adopters and speed freaks, I don't see a sizeable percentage of the population paying two and a half times as much for flakier Internet accessStable technologies tend to last, whatever their weaknesses compared to newer, glitzier ones" " http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s%253D916%2526a%253D13570,00.asp > There is also another problem that was just as bad - the market was flooded > with service providers. There was WAY too much supply and only moderatre > demand. Yep exactly. But again, this is apparently what people want. Or look at it the other way - rather than having lots and lots of providers killing each other in the market, would things be better if there were only a small handful of giant providers that held large market sway? And I think the term 'moderate' is too strong. A better description of demand is 'fair' or 'tepid'. The simple fact is that while there is a big difference between being connected to the Internet and not being connected, once you are connected, having higher speeds is of only minor benefit. "...the ones who tend to be impressed are those who do large file transfers through FTP or HTTP. Casual Web browsers, on the other hand, are surprised at how little speed increase they see with ADSL. That shouldn't be surprising; Most of the World Wide Wait is time waiting for overloaded servers, not time waiting for data to make it through clogged pipes." http://www.theneteconomy.com/article/0,3658,s%253D916%2526a%253D13570,00.asp > > I still see plenty of growth in this industry, even excluding the service > provider market. I hope so too. But the data seems to indicate a much more pessimistic future, at least in the short run. > ""nrf"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > For example, here is just one study from today: > > > > http://news.com.com/2009-1033-839335.html > > > > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Most indications seem to be that the networking industry, and the > > > telco/provider segment in particular will greatly lag any general > economic > > > recovery. Nobody is predicting a serious telecom recovery this year, > and > > > many economists don't even predict one next year. Many big names have > > > already gone down - Exodus, Excite@home, GlobalCrossing - and others are > > > playing serious defense - Level3, MCIWorldcom, AT&T, Qwest. Huge debt > > > payments continue to hang over the industry, and that problem won't be > > > cleared up anytime soon. > > > > > > One dirty little secret of the provider industry is that very few > > providers > > > actually make consistent profit on a true cash-flow basis. Just like the > > > dotcoms, the providers can't figure out how to wring a decent amount of > > > profit out from the Internet either. Sure, many providers will claim > > > pro-forma profits, but after the Enron catastrophe, nobody wants to see > > > pro-forma numbers, correctly preferring real cash-flow numbers. > > > > > > But all this talk might be a case of fiddling while Rome burns. All > this > > > talk of a future recovery in the long run doesn't really help anybody > > right > > > now. Like the macro-economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "In the > long > > > run, we're all dead". Specifically, discussion of decent job prospects > in > > > the future doesn't exactly help a guy who needs to pay the bills now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message &g
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Whoops. Sorry for the multiple posts. Apparently the groupstudy server somehow thought I was a spammer and didn't post my responses in a timely fashion, causing me to resend. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35821&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network jobs in Dallas, TX? [7:35608]
I don't know what your personal circumstances are, but you may be better off moving out of Dallas. I know it's rough moving (I personally hate it), but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. If it makes you feel better, people are forced to move all the time to pursue their careers. It's like all those people who want to be movie actors who are pretty much forced to move to Los Angeles (which is not exactly a bad thing - if I had to move somewhere, I could do a lot worse than LaLa land). > > > > ""ME"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I'm new to the Dallas area and recently laid-off. I was wondering if > > folks > > > here knew of anyone looking for somebody with 10 years network exp. and > a > > > CCIE in the Dallas area? If so please reply. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Mark Egan, CCIE #8775 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35824&t=35608 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
It is absolutely true that there is a lot of laziness and incompetence floating around the industry. People don't want to take the time to really learn the material, and that's a serious problem. But I think Carroll Kong said it best when she alluded to the fact that this kind of thing may be neither here nor there. Specifically, what does it really matter if you train and study hard if companies are just going to indiscriminately lay you off anyway? Or even if you're well-trained and educated and you still can't find anybody who wants to hire you? While you might take pride in the fact that you worked hard and gave it your 100% effort, in the final analysis, you still don't have a job. ""Leslie McIntosh"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Agreed! > > I would say there is only a handfull of us that have > had it up to here with the lack of training budget and > just built our own lab a the house. I dare say there > are fewer of us that actually try to learn this stuff > after work as well. > > Les > > > --- Carroll Kong wrote: > > At 09:51 PM 2/18/02 -0500, Kevin St.Amour wrote: > > >Just a thought. > > > Just as there is a glut of Fiber, I believe > > the market created a > > >glut of Tech works. I remember going to a > > Technical School, and before > > >slapping down 15k for a networking Degree in 1998 > > (BTW, the school went > > >under a year ago http://clcx.com ) I heard numbers > > like "This industry > > >will be behind 500k Tech workers due to lack of > > Skill by 2004...Get the > > >skills now (paraphrasing)" > > > > > >-Kevin > > > > Do not know about you, but on average, most of the > > guys I see in the > > industry are woefully inept and incompetent. I am > > shocked they get paid > > anything even close to the amount they do. If one > > thing is for certain, we > > definitely need BETTER guys out there. However, it > > seems like, most > > companies do not realize what good people are. Such > > a disparity only helps > > in the downturn. > > > > What is sad is, instead of appreciating technical > > ability and learning > > capacity, most companies are doing a fire sale and > > axing what few good > > people they have. While some of the incompetent > > upper management survive > > due to nepotism and what not. > > > > So, while I agree a downturn is occurring, I do NOT > > agree that there is an > > "oversupply" of qualified individuals. I would say > > 60-80% of the "IT" > > people I meet are inadequate. > > > > -Carroll Kong > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > = > Leslie McIntosh > Network Engineer > CCNA, CNE, CNS, A+, Network+ Certified > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35831&t=35611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
Oh, don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that the Internet is here to stay and will continue to grow. Obviously there will have to be some kind of successful service-provider business model that will emerge. That is inevitable and indisputable. You have to remember what the original thread was all about. A guy asked what was wrong with the job market, and wondered who was running all those networks, with the strong assumption that the number of networks has remained static. I am pointing out that this assumption is incorrect, and that the number of networks has indeed gone down significantly (which therefore means less trained people needed), and I used the intense turmoil in the provider space as my best example. So if people want to understand why there is so much difficulty in finding work now, you need look no further than the provider space. Then of course people wondered whether the turmoil with the providers is really bad as I made it out to be, and that was when I responded with all those articles, in effect saying "Yes, it is indeed as bad I made it out to be, possibly worse, and here's proof." So inevitably technology will advance, or consumer tastes will change, or something will happen to make providers viable again. But again, the question is when? In the long-run, surely. But, again, with Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead." It reminds me of what happened in the Great Depression, when classical economists stated emphatically that in the long-run, the economy must recover, but then of course Keynes made his famous quote, stating that in effect waiting for a theoretical long-run scenario is just not feasible for lots of people who need to pay the bills now. No I'm not talking about myself, as I'm doing just fine, don't worry about me. But I do feel sympathy for all those other guys who got in the business and now can't find work. ""Steve Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > My first message never came through, so I'll try again... > > It's true that TV's, phones, radios, and cable have a larger market share, > but it took like 50 years for those technologies to reach critical mass! As > I keep saying, the Internet is still in it's infancy. > > The problem that the dot.bomb's, telecom providers, and others had is the > same you seem to be having - it's not going to happen overnight. It's going > to take time. It's also going to take new and creative uses for the Intenet > in order to create demand for Internet useage and high-speed links. Just as > the static web page is popular now, it will be replaced with things such as > video-on demand, file-sharing peer-to-peer apps that Napster proved to be so > popular, and even peer-to-peer computer OS's (every major company is trying > to come up with one, .Net, JINI and others just to name a few). Thses > things need networks. Plus, tehcnology has gotten better, faster and > cheaper since the ancient times, so I don't doubt that prices will come > down. I would never bet against technology. Remember, "640k ought to be > enough for anyone"? > > Also, there isn't a computer in evey home yet, as they can be complicated > for granny and grampa to use, and they are still quite expensive. The web > will soon be accessed with simple devices other than computers, such as your > cable box or reffrigerator, greatly expanding the net. > > All these things will expand the Net and create jobs. > > I nrf wrote: > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > That article taked about 1 problem, the problem almost every > > company had - > > > grabing too much land and equipment with no customers or > > sustainable > > > revenue. But that's also the problem every dot-bomb had. > > Thankfully the > > > buble burst, the madness ended and took out the garbage. No > > company would > > > stay in business that way. This dosen't mean that their > > services weren't > > > wanted. Most every home who has a dial-up, most buisinesses > > that don't > > have > > > DSL in their area are still waiting for the right > > company/technology to > > come > > > by and at the right price. > > > > I'm afraid I have to disagree. The simple fact is that in many > > cases, the > > services were in fact not wanted, at least at the price points > > they were > > offered at, but then of course if they were offered at lower > > price points, > > there would have been even less profit than there al
Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611]
If I may propose a few counterpoints: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 4:09 AM Subject: Re: what is wrong with the job market ? [7:35611] In a message dated 2/18/2002 9:13:35 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: nrf, I tend to agree with what you said about broadband. However, I think I can sum it up in 3 points: *The Broadband market is not the success story vendors had claimed because: 1. The low learning curve of the average internet usergrandma and grndpa are just learning about how to operate that dial-up thingy! But apparently grandma and grandpa have learned the dialup thing pretty good by now. I read a story on CNET that says that Internet penetration (almost all dial) in the United States is now above 60%, so that obviously includes a lot of people who aren't particularly tech savvy. But again, that leaves you with an even more depressing taste in your mouth. Obviously lots of people have used the Internet and understand what it's about. But, having this understanding, apparently the vast majority of those users do not see why it is worth it to pay more money for greater speed. Again, from Hart/Whitman: "... If you cannot win over the people who are currently using the Internet, consumer acceptance of high-speed access will be slow and limited..." http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html. And of course dropping prices is not really an option because offering broadband at too low of a price is what got all these providers in trouble in the first place. And maybe price really isn't the issue at all - according to Hart/Whitman, 48% of those without broadband are not interested in it at any price. 2. None of the mid-level providers have the capital to sustain slow growth and none of the "big 4" want to invest in a recession..its just not economically prudent to sell a secondary service such as internet when people are out of work and can barely afford food and rent! That would make sense, except for the fact that these laid-off and poor workers are still apparently willing to shell out dough for other kinds of telco services that I would consider 'secondary'. For example, digital cable TV has more than double the uptake rate of broadband. I would consider having the ability to watch 5 different HBO channels to be rather 'secondary'. Satellite TV (DirecTV, Echostar) has also achieved greater success than broadband. Isn't the ability to watch every single NFL game in the country on Sunday the very definition of 'secondary'? Cell phone penetration is highly successful, much more successful than broadband. Isn't that secondary (after all, most cell-phone users also maintain their landline, so the cellphone just an extra, expensive, although highly convenient phone)? In each case (digital cable, satellite TV, cellphone), the monthly cost is roughly the same or more as broadband, if you factor in the costs of equipment (especially for satelliteTV, where the cost of the receiver is large). So we're talking about roughly the same amount of money, so obviously consumers have money they are willing to spend. Then that begs the question - if broadband is really that good, how come consumers would rather spend money on those other services? 3. The chain of events over the last 9 months that have compounded the socioeconomic struggles of the United States as a whole have left us a nation of fear and apprehension of the future..you can't tell me that this factor, especially, doesn't come into play when IT companies are deciding how to best spend next year's budget! Really? Fear and apprehension of the future? Well, again, that would make sense if there was a corresponding massive shift down in consumer spending across the board. Yet, economic reports indicates that consumer spending has stayed surprisingly strong even after September 11, and in fact, many articles from the major business magazines - Businessweek, Forbes, Fortune, etc. have expressed surprise at the remarkable relatively strength in consumer spending - and in fact have gone so far as to credit the consumer as the one shining beacon of hope in an otherwise dismal economy. For example, "...Fear of terrorism was expected to keep shoppers at home. But consumers seemed to shrug off uncertainty. That was especially clear in the yearend trend in home sales. Consumers showed great willingness to take on the huge financial commitment of paying off a mortgage. December sales of new homes rose 5.7% to an annual rate of 946,000. Sales of new houses set a record of 901,000 for all of 2001." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_06/b3769037.htm "...Consumers may actually be set to boost their spending. Even if it seems that home and aut
Re: can you bind two frame relay circuits? [7:35854]
I think you mean to say multilink FR. Seems to me that it's rather difficult to do PPP multilink on FR (unless, I suppose, you're doing PPPoFR, but who the hell does that?) ""Michael Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Assuming that you have more than one circuit to the same offsite, you could > use PPP Multilink to "bond" them together into a 512 or 768 connection. > > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35964&t=35854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: can you bind two frame relay circuits? [7:35854]
You don't need to point that out to me. I was always well aware that you could do PPPoFR. I just can't figure out too many reasons why you'd really want to. ""MADMAN"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > If you have been smokin crack you could do that: > > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/wan_ c/wcdfrely.htm#xtocid42 > > I won't get on the CEF soapbox again though;) > > Dave > > nrf wrote: > > > > I think you mean to say multilink FR. Seems to me that it's rather > > difficult to do PPP multilink on FR (unless, I suppose, you're doing > PPPoFR, > > but who the hell does that?) > > > > ""Michael Williams"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Assuming that you have more than one circuit to the same offsite, you > > could > > > use PPP Multilink to "bond" them together into a 512 or 768 connection. > > > > > > Mike W. > -- > David Madland > Sr. Network Engineer > CCIE# 2016 > Qwest Communications Int. Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 612-664-3367 > > "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=35981&t=35854 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Question [7:36243]
Cisco has made it clear that passing the written -CCIE exam does not get you a certificate in itself. Only by passing both the written and the lab do you obtain a cert. I don't know how it came to be acceptable that people can claim a certificate that doesn't exist. While you might say that it's not really a big deal - after all, the written is an exam, so it 'sort-of' is like a cert, so what's the harm in pretending that it's another cert? Well, the real problem is that if people are allowed to make up a "CCIE-Q" cert that doesn't exist, then what's to stop them from making up other qualifications that don't exist? It's the classic slippery slope. For example, if the CCIE-Q becomes an accepted pseudo-cert, then later somebody will inevitably say they have a "CCIE-A", because they (A)ttempted the written (but didn't pass). Or a "CCIE-F" for somebody who's never even seen a router in his life, but has heard about the CCIE program and is thinking about doing it in the (F)uture. Or heck, how about a Bachelor's Degree-(F) for somebody who's never stepped into a classroom in his life, but might do it in the future. I don't know about you, but I hold a Ph.D-(F), an MBA-(F), a Law-degree-(F), and a Medical-degree-(F), all from Harvard. ""Michael J. Doherty"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It seems to be common these days to use that abbreviation to mean that the > individual has taken, and passed, the Written exam, but not yet > challenged/passed the Lab. > > As for me, personally, when I get to that point, I do not plan on > advertising it in this manner. If it comes up in an interview question, I > would answer it. But, I refuse to put any certification on my resume until > I can honestly claim the entire title. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Brian Zeitz" > To: > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 1:54 PM > Subject: CCIE Question [7:36243] > > > > I saw a resume with "CCIE (Q)" after their name, what is the Q mean? > _ > 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=36256&t=36243 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Question [7:36243]
I never meant to imply that you supported the practice. I should have said that some people treat this as a common practice, not that you were one of those people. - Original Message - From: "Michael J. Doherty" To: "nrf" ; Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 12:19 PM Subject: Re: CCIE Question [7:36243] > Never said that I agreed with the practice. I am perfectly well aware of > Cisco's stance on the subject. > > My message, also, did not state that I thought that it is not a big deal. > Personally, if I were in a position responsible for hiring, all candidates > who posted that information in their resume would automatically find > themselves removed from consideration. > > I am proud of my own accomplishments and all of the initials that I can > place behind my name are placed with the full knowledge that I have the > score sheets and experience to back them up. > > Sincerely, > > Michael J. Doherty > MCSE-NT4, MCSE-W2K, CCNA Certified, CCDA Certified, NREMT-P and many others > that do not have initials. > > - Original Message - > From: "nrf" > To: > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 2:46 PM > Subject: Re: CCIE Question [7:36243] > > > > Cisco has made it clear that passing the written -CCIE exam does not get > you > > a certificate in itself. Only by passing both the written and the lab do > > you obtain a cert. I don't know how it came to be acceptable that people > > can claim a certificate that doesn't exist. > > > > While you might say that it's not really a big deal - after all, the > written > > is an exam, so it 'sort-of' is like a cert, so what's the harm in > pretending > > that it's another cert? Well, the real problem is that if people are > > allowed to make up a "CCIE-Q" cert that doesn't exist, then what's to stop > > them from making up other qualifications that don't exist? It's the > classic > > slippery slope. For example, if the CCIE-Q becomes an accepted > pseudo-cert, > > then later somebody will inevitably say they have a "CCIE-A", because they > > (A)ttempted the written (but didn't pass). Or a "CCIE-F" for somebody > > who's never even seen a router in his life, but has heard about the CCIE > > program and is thinking about doing it in the (F)uture. Or heck, how > about > > a Bachelor's Degree-(F) for somebody who's never stepped into a classroom > in > > his life, but might do it in the future. I don't know about you, but I > hold > > a Ph.D-(F), an MBA-(F), a Law-degree-(F), and a Medical-degree-(F), all > > from Harvard. > > > > > > > > > > ""Michael J. Doherty"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > It seems to be common these days to use that abbreviation to mean that > the > > > individual has taken, and passed, the Written exam, but not yet > > > challenged/passed the Lab. > > > > > > As for me, personally, when I get to that point, I do not plan on > > > advertising it in this manner. If it comes up in an interview question, > I > > > would answer it. But, I refuse to put any certification on my resume > > until > > > I can honestly claim the entire title. > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Brian Zeitz" > > > To: > > > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 1:54 PM > > > Subject: CCIE Question [7:36243] > > > > > > > > > > I saw a resume with "CCIE (Q)" after their name, what is the Q mean? > > > _ > > > 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=36265&t=36243 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Question [7:36243]
Inline ""Tshon"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > guys should keep in mind: > > No there is no CCIE Q or written cert. Cisco has identified you as > a lab candidate. This applies > to everyone on the planet. You have been invited to take the lab, > if you pass the written and after > that date you are still a CCIE candidate just like everyone elso on > the planet. > Just because you are a CCNP w/a specialization or not. you are > not invited! > > Next there is the financial aspect for corporations (the smart one). > CCIE's are expensive salaries are easily > $120,000/yr plus. Maybe in 1999. Not anymore. > But, if I can get a guy just before he passes lab > but after he has passed his written, I know > that he is trying and his knowledge will continue to increase. I > then close to lab time have a CCIE on staff, > working for pennies. And I have first crack at a offer. If he passes, which is no sure thing. > > So, thanks to the demand for CCIE's the CCIE written as you have > been identified has had a little weight, > not taking into account the present economy. Sure, but I think to be more relevant you do indeed have to take account of the present economy. > > Now there have been job posting for CCIE written, candidates, > Qualification exam people. And if you feel > confident enough to wear that title put what they are looking for on > the resume. > > Now CCNP whatevers have not been identified as such by anyone on > the planet. > > Finally it comes down to this "Do you have a number behind those > letters?" > > nrf wrote: > > >Cisco has made it clear that passing the written -CCIE exam does not get you > >a certificate in itself. Only by passing both the written and the lab do > >you obtain a cert. I don't know how it came to be acceptable that people > >can claim a certificate that doesn't exist. > > > >While you might say that it's not really a big deal - after all, the written > >is an exam, so it 'sort-of' is like a cert, so what's the harm in pretending > >that it's another cert? Well, the real problem is that if people are > >allowed to make up a "CCIE-Q" cert that doesn't exist, then what's to stop > >them from making up other qualifications that don't exist? It's the classic > >slippery slope. For example, if the CCIE-Q becomes an accepted pseudo-cert, > >then later somebody will inevitably say they have a "CCIE-A", because they > >(A)ttempted the written (but didn't pass). Or a "CCIE-F" for somebody > >who's never even seen a router in his life, but has heard about the CCIE > >program and is thinking about doing it in the (F)uture. Or heck, how about > >a Bachelor's Degree-(F) for somebody who's never stepped into a classroom in > >his life, but might do it in the future. I don't know about you, but I hold > >a Ph.D-(F), an MBA-(F), a Law-degree-(F), and a Medical-degree-(F), all > >from Harvard. > > > > > > > > > >""Michael J. Doherty"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > >>It seems to be common these days to use that abbreviation to mean that the > >>individual has taken, and passed, the Written exam, but not yet > >>challenged/passed the Lab. > >> > >>As for me, personally, when I get to that point, I do not plan on > >>advertising it in this manner. If it comes up in an interview question, I > >>would answer it. But, I refuse to put any certification on my resume > >> > >until > > > >>I can honestly claim the entire title. > >> > >> > >>- Original Message - > >>From: "Brian Zeitz" > >>To: > >>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 1:54 PM > >>Subject: CCIE Question [7:36243] > >> > >> > >>>I saw a resume with "CCIE (Q)" after their name, what is the Q mean? > >>> > >>_ > >>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=36282&t=36243 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPP over Frame Relay [7:36300]
The real purpose is just to make life more complicated. Seriously, I cannot even think of a single reason why I would ever want to use PPPoFR in real life. ""Rahul Kachalia"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > John, > > PPPoFR solution is to maintain leased line PPP end to end over SP's FR > backbone..Following is the sample topology : > > CPE--PPP/LL--SP--FR+PPP--SP--PPP/LL--CPE > > But later started using in Broadband environment with following topology > : > > CPE--PPPoFR/xDSL--DSLAM--PPPoFR--SP--PPPoFR--ISP/Wholesale provider > > But now you will find PPPoE, oEoA, oA & oEoVLAN, as you can see several > L2 tech. is used but the goal is to maintain PPP end-to-end due to its > feature for AAA purpose.. > > thanks, > rahul. > > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I believe someone might have mentioned this recently but since > > I'm studying it right now I thought I'd ask again... > > > > What the heck would be a real-world application of PPP over > > Frame Relay? If you want it for the authentication this is a > > lot of work! > > > > You need to setup a subinterface *and* a virtual template for > > every PVC! What a pain Then again, if you're using > > multipoint interfaces you'd simply use ip unnumbered and a > > single virtual template. > > > > Hmm what might we actually do with this? Interestingly, I > > just combined two features that I've never configured before: > > PPPoFR and FREEK. It makes my config look fairly odd. :-) > > > > John > > > > > > Get your own "800" number > > Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more > > http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36337&t=36300 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Question [7:36243]
Exactly ""Wessex Mail"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It means file - in the waste bin - and forget them, at least that's how my > company treats such people, because they are claiming to be something they > are not, however you dress it up > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Brian Zeitz > Sent: 22 February 2002 18:55 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: CCIE Question [7:36243] > > > I saw a resume with "CCIE (Q)" after their name, what is the Q mean? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36338&t=36243 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CISCO INTERNSHIP.....CCIE..... [7:36091]
Maybe in 1999. Not anymore. ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > A CCNA makes more than 50k. And you wouldn't have to pay your company to > work for them and get training. Most companies pay you and pay for your > training. > > -- > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > ""Sean Knox"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I've taken some classes at ICTP. From what I gather, their CCIE intern > > program works like this: you sign up for their CCIE program (which is not > > cheap I should add) and when you pass your CCIE written/lab (I vaguely > > remember that the CCIE written pass is all you need), you can work as a > > subcontractor for ICTP. You make substantially less money than a CCIE is > > "worth", (I believe around $50,000, don't quote me on that) but for those > > with little or no experience (i.e., people enrolling in this program), it > > works out really well. Hopefully Mr. Lee could explain the program more in > > detail. > > > > - Sean > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 11:34 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: CISCO INTERNSHIP.CCIE. [7:36091] > > > > > > Perhaps its a new look on recruiting, they train u, get a slice of the > > dough for awhile?? Just speculating of course.. > > > > Brian > > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Cisco Nuts wrote: > > > > > And upon finishing the program, how many years of slavery will we > > > unfortunate ones be indebted to your gracious company? :-) > > > Can you clarify this?? > > > > > > > > > >From: "Jason Lee" > > > >Reply-To: "Jason Lee" > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Subject: CISCO INTERNSHIP.CCIE. [7:36091] > > > >Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:40:20 -0500 > > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > > >My name is Jason Lee I currently work for ICTP located in anaheim > > > >california > > > >we are currently looking for few candidates to go through our very > > intense > > > >cisco training, also to note that upon finishing the program CEA (cisco > > > >expert academy)you can be eligible for an internship... we have > > information > > > >session going on every other friday, so if this sounds interesting to > > you, > > > >or if you need a lab to study for the ccie or ccnp please give me a > call. > > > > > > > >Jason Lee > > > >IT specialist > > > >714-783-1083 > > > >www.ICTP.com > > > _ > > > Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > > > http://www.hotmail.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36349&t=36091 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CISCO INTERNSHIP.....CCIE..... [7:36091]
""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Well in the good old days of the economy, I made more than that even before > becoming a CCNA. I would never settle for 50k, even in this econ., If you're just a CCNA and you won't settle for 50k now, well then you might be out of work for some time - a very very long time. > especially as a CCIE. Plus, a CCIE IMO should already have exp., and lots > of it. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of becoming a CCIE - cisco > certified internet EXPERT! > > -- > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > ""Sean Knox"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > A CCNA with little or no experience? Hardly. He's lucky to even land a job > > right now. I think this intern program is aimed at people new to the > field. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steven A. Ridder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 12:50 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: CISCO INTERNSHIP.CCIE. [7:36091] > > > > > > A CCNA makes more than 50k. And you wouldn't have to pay your company to > > work for them and get training. Most companies pay you and pay for your > > training. > > > > -- > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > ""Sean Knox"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I've taken some classes at ICTP. From what I gather, their CCIE intern > > > program works like this: you sign up for their CCIE program (which is > not > > > cheap I should add) and when you pass your CCIE written/lab (I vaguely > > > remember that the CCIE written pass is all you need), you can work as a > > > subcontractor for ICTP. You make substantially less money than a CCIE > is > > > "worth", (I believe around $50,000, don't quote me on that) but for > those > > > with little or no experience (i.e., people enrolling in this program), > it > > > works out really well. Hopefully Mr. Lee could explain the program more > in > > > detail. > > > > > > - Sean > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 11:34 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: CISCO INTERNSHIP.CCIE. [7:36091] > > > > > > > > > Perhaps its a new look on recruiting, they train u, get a slice of the > > > dough for awhile?? Just speculating of course.. > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Cisco Nuts wrote: > > > > > > > And upon finishing the program, how many years of slavery will we > > > > unfortunate ones be indebted to your gracious company? :-) > > > > Can you clarify this?? > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Jason Lee" > > > > >Reply-To: "Jason Lee" > > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >Subject: CISCO INTERNSHIP.CCIE. [7:36091] > > > > >Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:40:20 -0500 > > > > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > > > > >My name is Jason Lee I currently work for ICTP located in anaheim > > > > >california > > > > >we are currently looking for few candidates to go through our very > > > intense > > > > >cisco training, also to note that upon finishing the program CEA > (cisco > > > > >expert academy)you can be eligible for an internship... we have > > > information > > > > >session going on every other friday, so if this sounds interesting to > > > you, > > > > >or if you need a lab to study for the ccie or ccnp please give me a > > call. > > > > > > > > > >Jason Lee > > > > >IT specialist > > > > >714-783-1083 > > > > >www.ICTP.com > > > > _ > > > > Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > > > > http://www.hotmail.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36350&t=36091 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CISCO INTERNSHIP.....CCIE..... [7:36091]
That's for damn sure. ""adam lee"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Here in the Bay Area you might be unemployed for a long time no matter what > cert you have. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > nrf > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 3:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: CISCO INTERNSHIP.CCIE. [7:36091] > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Well in the good old days of the economy, I made more than that even > before > > becoming a CCNA. I would never settle for 50k, even in this econ., > > If you're just a CCNA and you won't settle for 50k now, well then you might > be out of work for some time - a very very long time. > > > > especially as a CCIE. Plus, a CCIE IMO should already have exp., and lots > > of it. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of becoming a CCIE - cisco > > certified internet EXPERT! > > > > -- > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > ""Sean Knox"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > A CCNA with little or no experience? Hardly. He's lucky to even land a > job > > > right now. I think this intern program is aimed at people new to the > > field. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Steven A. Ridder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 12:50 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: CISCO INTERNSHIP.CCIE. [7:36091] > > > > > > > > > A CCNA makes more than 50k. And you wouldn't have to pay your company > to > > > work for them and get training. Most companies pay you and pay for your > > > training. > > > > > > -- > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > > > ""Sean Knox"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > I've taken some classes at ICTP. From what I gather, their CCIE intern > > > > program works like this: you sign up for their CCIE program (which is > > not > > > > cheap I should add) and when you pass your CCIE written/lab (I vaguely > > > > remember that the CCIE written pass is all you need), you can work as > a > > > > subcontractor for ICTP. You make substantially less money than a > CCIE > > is > > > > "worth", (I believe around $50,000, don't quote me on that) but for > > those > > > > with little or no experience (i.e., people enrolling in this program), > > it > > > > works out really well. Hopefully Mr. Lee could explain the program > more > > in > > > > detail. > > > > > > > > - Sean > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 11:34 AM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: CISCO INTERNSHIP.CCIE. [7:36091] > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps its a new look on recruiting, they train u, get a slice of the > > > > dough for awhile?? Just speculating of course.. > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Cisco Nuts wrote: > > > > > > > > > And upon finishing the program, how many years of slavery will we > > > > > unfortunate ones be indebted to your gracious company? :-) > > > > > Can you clarify this?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Jason Lee" > > > > > >Reply-To: "Jason Lee" > > > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >Subject: CISCO INTERNSHIP.CCIE. [7:36091] > > > > > >Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:40:20 -0500 > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > >My name is Jason Lee I currently work for ICTP located in anaheim > > > > > >california > > > > > >we are currently looking for few candidates to go through our very > > > > intense > > > > > >cisco training, also to note that upon finishing the program CEA > > (cisco > > > > > >expert academy)you can be eligible for an internship... we have > > > > information > > > > > >session going on every other friday, so if this sounds interesting > to > > > > you, > > > > > >or if you need a lab to study for the ccie or ccnp please give me a > > > call. > > > > > > > > > > > >Jason Lee > > > > > >IT specialist > > > > > >714-783-1083 > > > > > >www.ICTP.com > > > > > _ > > > > > Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > > > > > http://www.hotmail.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36410&t=36091 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco VS Foundry Networks.. [7:36448]
They got a nice L3 switch. Their load-balancers are not bad. But their attempts to enter the ISP-core and be the next Juniper were an epic disaster. ""R34RV13WM1RR0R"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Foundry makes great products! On product in particular that blows Cisco > away is their ServerIron Load Balancers. Cisco made a big mistake by > buying Arrowpoint, and badging them the CSS line of equipment. As far as > Foundry's switches go, they are very comparable. They use a Cisco replica > command set, so if you know Cisco, you can adapt to Foundry fairly easily. > So all in all, Foundry is a good product, worth consideration for a lot of > different applications. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Washington Rico" > To: > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:02 PM > Subject: Cisco VS Foundry Networks.. [7:36448] > > > > Cisco people I would like to know your impression of Foundry Networks. > Are > > they something to worry about? > > > > Regards, > > Eric Washington > > > > _ > > $B$+$o(B & > > $B;H$($k%V%i%&%6$G!"%$%s%?! http://explorer.msn.co.jp/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36544&t=36448 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBM' s latest and fastest chip ? [7:36473]
Some of Cisco's main chip suppliers - Motorola, PMC-Sierra, Vitesse Semiconductor, MIPS, Applied MicroCircuits, Broadcom, and many others (Cisco has loads of different supplies because of their many platforms). Juniper uses IBM, Xilinx, Intel, and some others. ""Ken Corkins"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > IBM sold all of their networking product lines to Cisco when they formed > the Alliance. (http://www-1.ibm.com/services/alliances/cisco/index.html > ). > IBM sells a great deal of Cisco equipment. IBM sells other lines as > well, but like the rest of the world, Cisco is the #1 line. > > I don't know where Cisco buys their chips and processors from. > > Disclaimer: I am an IBM employee. > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > John Green > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: IBM' s latest and fastest chip ? [7:36473] > > > ibm says that its chip can run at 110 GHz. > > who makes the chips or processors for cisco routers > and switches. also what about juniper ? > > who and which companies use chips made by IBM ? is IBM > into networking products ? > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games > http://sports.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36560&t=36473 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: can you bind two frame relay circuits? [7:35854]
It is no longer a 12000-only feature. MFR is now available for 2600's,
3600's, 3700's (don't know what kind of router that is, but it's listed in
there, and 7200's.
""Chuck"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> this news will surely disappoint the woman who posted the question. If
> memory serves,she works for a company that probably does not have 12xxx's
in
> their lineup
>
> Chuck
>
> ""MADMAN"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Yes I have since you pointed that out. Know what it means to
> > ASSume!! It is a 12000 series only feature at this point.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > Chuck wrote:
> > >
> > > according to the information in the link, this feature is supported
only
> on
> > > the 12000 series. Anyone checked to see if the feature has been
migrated
> > > down to other platforms as newer IOS's are released?
> > >
> > > ""MADMAN"" wrote in message
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > You want to get fancy you can try multilink frame relay:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120
> > > limit/120s/120s17/17s_mfr.htm
> > > >
> > > > Then again if you want it simple and to work do what Patrick
aluded
> > > > to, enable CEF and on the interface choose your favorite switching
> > > > mechanism, per packet or per destination.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > Patrick Ramsey wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > well you wouldn't really "bind" them...but, if you were using a
> routing
> > > > > protocol such as ospf, then it could round robin packets for you.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Patrick
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> beth 02/19/02 10:34AM >>>
> > > > > I have several 256k frame relay circuits some coming back to same
> host
> > > > > circuit
> > > > > my question is , is there anyway to way to bind a couple of these
on
> a
> > > > router
> > > > > to increase bandwidth to 512k??
> > > > > > Confidentiality DisclaimerThis email and any
> files
> > > > transmitted with it may contain confidential and
> > > > > /or proprietary information in the possession of WellStar Health
> > System,
> > > > > Inc. ("WellStar") and is intended only for the individual or
entity
> to
> > > whom
> > > > > addressed. This email may contain information that is held to be
> > > > > privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable
> > > law.
> > > > If
> > > > > the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
> > hereby
> > > > > notified that any unauthorized access, dissemination, distribution
> or
> > > > > copying of any information from this email is strictly prohibited,
> and
> > > may
> > > > > subject you to criminal and/or civil liability. If you have
received
> > > this
> > > > > email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and then
> delete
> > > > this
> > > > > email and its attachments from your computer. Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Madland
> > > > Sr. Network Engineer
> > > > CCIE# 2016
> > > > Qwest Communications Int. Inc.
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > 612-664-3367
> > > >
> > > > "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it"
> > --
> > David Madland
> > Sr. Network Engineer
> > CCIE# 2016
> > Qwest Communications Int. Inc.
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 612-664-3367
> >
> > "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it"
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36563&t=35854
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS in CCIE [7:36682]
You say you want to study more recent technologies? Simple answer - the Juniper JNCIE. Or possibly the C/S CCIE, but the fact that that exam has only been successful passed by one person (the proctor in Halifax), perhaps it's not such a good idea. ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > I saw a network recently with DECNet, but you've got to admit, they're few > and far between. I've done a 100:1 ratio of wireless networks, vpn, > firewalls, etc,. as compared to a DECnet or Banyan Vines network (in fact, > I've never seen a banyan vines network except in my old college library). > Even IPX is going away (excpet for the diehard Microsoft haters). > > I don't know about you, but I'd like some more recent topics to be covered > on the exam because I feel like I'm studying irrelvant stuff sometimes. I > feel like I'm wasting my brain on some stuff. > -- > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > ""David C Prall"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > > Steven, > > I don't know if it is outdated or not. I still have customers running > Vines, > > DecNet, IPX and AppleTalk. Of course chaos, apollo and pup I haven't seen > > recently in the real world. > > > > David C Prall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dcp.dcptech.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Steven A. Ridder" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:51 PM > > Subject: Re: MPLS in CCIE [7:36682] > > > > > > > For routing and switching - none. Is it me or is the R&S track getting > > > outdated? It seems to cover technologies that, although are useful, not > > as > > > current. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > > > > > > ""Persio Pucci"" wrote in message > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > > > > How much of MPLS (if some at all) is covered in the CCIE exams? > > > > > > > > tks! > > > > > > > > Persio Pucci - CCNP > > > > UOL Inc. - Tecnologia > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36779&t=36682 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS in CCIE [7:36682]
Well no, I would actually argue that right now the Juniper JNCIE is the better way to go, for a number of reasons. Yeah yeah, I know I'm going to get flamed for that (and already had been, on previous occasions when I said this). But the fact is, not only is the JNCIE program is testing on the more recent technologies that you said you wanted to look into, but again, the fact that the C/S program is highly muddled and confused (they keep changing the focus of that exam, I can't tell you much more due to NDA), and the fact that the test grading procedure has been, suffice it to say, rather controversial - I'll just leave it at that. The point is that because of these factors, the C/S has so far gained essentially no traction and recognition within the service-provider market it supposedly caters to. I've noticed that providers will either have no idea what the C/S progam is and just assume you're talking about the R/S, or they do know, and therefore know how confused the program is. ""Steven A Ridder"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > That C/S cert seems to be the way to go! That's what I'd go for, but since > only one person has ever passed it, I think it may be safe to say that I'd > never get a CCIE number that way. I may go for that cert once I get my R/S > CCIE done. What makes that test so hard? And has anyone heard anything > about a CCIE in voice technologies coming out? > > -- > RFC 1149 Compliant > > > ""Nilesh Pujari"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > > Here u go. > > > > CCIE Communications & Services > > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/certifications/services.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36836&t=36682 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RSTP - what's up with that? [7:36851]
Does anybody know exactly how Rapid Spanning Tree works, or have a link that describes it in detail? What I'm really interested in knowing is the technical details that make it better than old-school STP, and in particular, if RSTP is better, then why didn't the original STP designers make it like RSTP in the first place (not trying to criticize, I'm just interested in the evolutionary process of protocols)? What I find curious is that I searched and while I found that web sites freely discuss how RSTP is better (or not), or talk about which vendors have implemented it or not, I haven't found a single site that describes exactly what RSTP is doing from a technical perspective and why whatever it is doing is better than STP. Furthermore, I'm not a member of IEEE, so I guess I can't access the 802.1w doc. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36851&t=36851 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RSTP - what's up with that? [7:36851]
Cool. That's pretty much exactly what I was looking for. It still leaves one of my questions unanswered though. I know this might sound like a wise-ass question, but I assure you that I ask this with no malice. If RSTP really does offer such an improvement over STP, then why didn't we always have RSTP? Specifically, why didn't the inventors of the original STP put the features of RTSP into STP? Was it just a matter of learning from a mistake - that they thought that the long STP convergence time was acceptable, and then later realized that it wasn't? Or that they wanted to keep STP simple, only to find that customers really wanted these advanced (albeit complex) features? Or were there some technical issues with switches in the old days that might have prevented proper RTSP implementation? Or something else? ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].; > You can get to the standard. You don't have to be a member of IEEE. > > filler due to url bug filler due to url bug filler due to url bug filler > due to url bug filler due to url bug filler due to url bug filler due to > url bug filler due to url bug filler due to url bug > > Near the bottom of the following page, click on Terms and Conditions and > agree to give away your first born child if you should break these terms > and then you can get to many standards, inlucding IEEE 802.1w. Please let > us know what you find out. ;-) > > http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/ > > Priscilla > > > At 04:09 PM 2/28/02, nrf wrote: > >Does anybody know exactly how Rapid Spanning Tree works, or have a link that > >describes it in detail? What I'm really interested in knowing is the > >technical details that make it better than old-school STP, and in > >particular, if RSTP is better, then why didn't the original STP designers > >make it like RSTP in the first place (not trying to criticize, I'm just > >interested in the evolutionary process of protocols)? > > > >What I find curious is that I searched and while I found that web sites > >freely discuss how RSTP is better (or not), or talk about which vendors have > >implemented it or not, I haven't found a single site that describes exactly > >what RSTP is doing from a technical perspective and why whatever it is doing > >is better than STP. Furthermore, I'm not a member of IEEE, so I guess I > >can't access the 802.1w doc. > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36871&t=36851 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
