Re: 3COM - CISCO interoperability
3Com's gig trunking protocol is proprietary. Its a load sharing method similar to Cisco's fast etherchannel concept. The 6506 won't know what to do with it. Their gig modules will talk to each other, and both support 802.1q, but you cannot load share links between them. -Rob Fielding - Original Message - From: "freddy moreno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 1:52 PM Subject: 3COM - CISCO interoperability > do any of you have experience connecting a 3com Corebuilder 9000 to a Cisco > 6506 > using Gig Trunking? >any gotchas, special things that need to be done. > > please let me know than you > > thank you very much > > > _ > 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]
Re: How to get rid of "Loading network-config ... [timed out]
Do a show run. Somewhere near the top, there should be a line that says "service config". Remove it by typing "no service config" in global config mode. -Rob Fielding, CCNP - Original Message - From: "Roger Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 12:06 PM Subject: How to get rid of "Loading network-config ... [timed out] > Dear Networkers, > > Please tell me how to configure my 2611 router so that I don't constantly get > the following messages: > > > Loading network-confg ... [timed out] > Loading cisconet.cfg ... [timed out] > Loading routera-confg ... [timed out] > Loading routera.cfg ... [timed out] > > > Thanks in advance, > > Roger > > > Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html > _ > UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > **NOTE: New CCNA/CCDA List has been formed. For more information go to http://www.groupstudy.com/list/Associates.html _ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OPSF Adj problems
Your configs would be a big help, but without them my best guess here is that you were using inverse arp and you added an incorrect frame relay map statement. Frame relay map statements disable inverse arp for the protocol it was configured for. Any dynamic ip to dlci mappings you had with inverse arp will remain until you reload the router. Another possibility is that you have different interface types (point-to-point vs. non-broadcast for instance) on the two routers. If that is the case, your hello and dead timers will be different and you won't form adjacencies. Please send your configs. -Rob Fielding, MCSE, CCNP - Original Message - From: "Wilson, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:31 AM Subject: OPSF Adj problems > Hi all > > I have a lab with 4 1602 routers. I have 2 of them, RA&RB, ospf over nbma > frame-relay. When I do a show neighbor on RA, I see RB in the INIT/DRother > state. When I do a show ip ospf neighbor on RB, I get nothing. I have > debug ip ospf adj running on both, and I see the hello's exchanging for the > 2-way state, but then they time out. Why can't I form these neighbors? > They were running fine until RB was reloaded. Have I lost my RID?? Please > advise > > Christian Wilson > Network Engineer > Select Comfort Corporation > > _ > 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]
Re: OPSF Adj problems
Your configs would be a big help, but without them my best guess here is that you were using inverse arp and you added an incorrect frame relay map statement. Frame relay map statements disable inverse arp for the protocol it was configured for. Any dynamic ip to dlci mappings you had with inverse arp will remain until you reload the router. Another possibility is that you have different interface types (point-to-point vs. non-broadcast for instance) on the two routers. If that is the case, your hello and dead timers will be different and you won't form adjacencies. Please send your configs. -Rob Fielding, MCSE, CCNP - Original Message - From: "Wilson, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:31 AM Subject: OPSF Adj problems > Hi all > > I have a lab with 4 1602 routers. I have 2 of them, RA&RB, ospf over nbma > frame-relay. When I do a show neighbor on RA, I see RB in the INIT/DRother > state. When I do a show ip ospf neighbor on RB, I get nothing. I have > debug ip ospf adj running on both, and I see the hello's exchanging for the > 2-way state, but then they time out. Why can't I form these neighbors? > They were running fine until RB was reloaded. Have I lost my RID?? Please > advise > > Christian Wilson > Network Engineer > Select Comfort Corporation > > _ > 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]
Passed CCIE Written!
This was no easy test. I got 78%. It wasn't very ambiguous, but I really had to pick apart details to choose an answer. To make matters worse, the test exploded half-way through. Fortunately, when they got it restarted, it picked up where I left off. I finished with plenty of time to spare. An occasional joke planted in the test helped to clear my head a few times. I didn't notice a focus on any one subject. There was an even mix of everything (and I mean everything!). This test was more detailed than ACRC. I didn't do a very good job studying for this test. I dragged it out too long. I was going to take it before my son was born, but he arrived a month early so its been hard to find study time recently. I could have taken it a couple of months ago after I finished my CCNP cert, but I was just too lazy. The resources I used were: CertificationZone - very good, probably the single best resource, but I don't like the fact that you can only take the tests once each. CCIE Exam Cram - surprisingly detailed. Good sample test, but not enough by itself. Que CCIE prep kit - Average. Boson - loaded with errors. Very frustrating. I never even tried all four tests. I just gave up after two. I have Internet Routing Architectures and Routing TCP/IP, but I haven't read them yet. I just used them for reference occasionally. CCNP and field experience - This would have been too hard without experience and focused studying. Well, now I'm off to find a lab date and give away $1000 to Cisco. Wish me luck. -Rob Fielding
Re: entry in the ospf database but not in the route table ? Is [7:5067]
This is not a direct answer to your question, but you might be interested to read this. This paper describes one strange situation in which ospf routes don't get into the routing table: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/104/10.html -Rob Fielding - Original Message - From: "Padhu (LFG)" To: Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 10:53 AM Subject: entry in the ospf database but not in the route table ? Is that p ossible ? > I am trying to locate an email thread that was talking about having an > entry > > in the ospf database but not in the route table ? Is that possible ? > > > > Cheers,Padhu > **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5067&t=5067 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Lab Prep Guides [7:17584]
I used the CCBootcamp labs. Certificationzone has a couple of good labs. Their frame-relay lab is pretty good. I haven't seen any of their new stuff. The CCBootcamp labs are big scenarios, most of which will take all day to do. I used them for studying and practice at first, and for speed drills later. Get on the Groupstudy CCIE Lab list, buy the bootcamp labs, and get some routers to practice on. Go to the ECP1 class if you can. Good luck to you. -Rob Fielding CCIE #7996 - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 11:19 PM Subject: CCIE Lab Prep Guides [7:17584] > Does anyone have any feedback on the CCIE lab prep workbooks from CCBootcamp > (Network Learning, Inc.) vs. CertificationZone ? Just curious as to how > valuable these may be. So far, I have been utilizing the generic books > (Caslow, Satterlee, Halabi, Doyle...) for scenarios and practice. > > > > Thanks, > > Duncan > > Duncan Wallace > Sr. Network Engineer > 800.COM Inc. > 1516 NW Thurman St > Portland, OR 97209-2517 > > Direct: 503.944.3671 > Cell: 503.969.8248 > Fax: 503.943.9371 > Web: http://800.com > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=17717&t=17584 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ospf [7:18002]
Do Not Age. Those are routes that don't age out. They were probably learned across an ISDN backup link, or a virtual link. If the router has an isdn interface, check for the 'ip ospf demand-circuit' command. Otherwise, look for a virtual link configured on a router. There's good info about this on cisco.com, and on the doc cd. -Rob Fielding CCIE #7996 - Original Message - From: "Dwayne Saunders" To: Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 6:41 PM Subject: ospf [7:18002] > Hi all, > is any one able to direct me in the right direction or be able to > explain what the (DNA) is in the sh ip ospf database > > Router Link States (Area 0) > > Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum Link count > 172.16.11.100 172.16.11.100 19700x8008 0x776B 5 > 172.26.1.49 172.26.1.49 5 (DNA) 0x8158 0xD943 1 > 192.168.101.101 192.168.101.101 1895 (DNA) 0x815E 0xDCE3 1 > > Summary Net Link States (Area 0) > > Link ID ADV Router Age Seq# Checksum > 172.26.1.17 172.26.1.49 678 (DNA) 0x8155 0x23F1 > 172.26.1.33 172.26.1.49 678 (DNA) 0x8155 0x8282 > 172.26.1.49 172.26.1.49 678 (DNA) 0x8155 0xE113 > 192.168.1.16172.16.11.100 19710x8006 0x9708 > 192.168.1.16172.26.1.49 1 (DNA) 0x815C 0x1B5F > 192.168.1.16192.168.101.101 1895 (DNA) 0x800A 0x97FB > 192.168.1.48172.16.11.100 19710x8007 0x542A > 192.168.1.48172.26.1.49 1 (DNA) 0x8003 0x8530 > 192.168.1.48192.168.101.101 1895 (DNA) 0x8005 0x6A0D > 192.168.1.64172.16.11.100 19710x8005 0xC1AD > 192.168.1.64172.26.1.49 678 (DNA) 0x8155 0x3D15 > 192.168.1.64192.168.101.101 1895 (DNA) 0x8008 0xCD95 > 192.168.101.101 192.168.101.101 1895 (DNA) 0x8007 0x527B > > any help will be appreciated > > D'Wayne Saunders > Network Admin Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=18015&t=18002 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes [7:18108]
I just quickly glanced at the 827 docs on cisco.com, so please correct me if I'm wrong about them. According to the docs, you can configure the 827's for bridging or NAT. You could avoid static routes on this edge of the customer's network entirely (except for defaults on the 827's). The 7206 would see all of the home networks as being directly connected. NAT overload would probably be my first choice because the 827 could assign addresses to the home pc's with DHCP, so the users wouldn't have to configure anything, and any number of home pc's would just share the 827's wan interface address. No need for statics at all. Does the customer have any issues about this type of config? -Rob Fielding CCIE #7996 - Original Message - From: "Chuck Larrieu" To: Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:38 PM Subject: RE: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes [7:18038] > There have been several good replies to my post. In addition to Tony's > insight below, Leigh Anne and Jim both had excellent observations that > covered issues my customer raised. > > The customer expressed concerns were with engineers who for any number of > reasons, whether careless, inconsiderate, malicious, or as part of their > jobs, might bring down various segments. this is something that apparently > happens with some regularity in the customer production network. > > there were concerns with route flapping at the core. we are in California, > after all, and we still live under the threat of rolling blackouts. plus > many folks out here are doing their part by shutting things down at night, > or when not in use. The flapping issue is bogus, as one could always > advertise only the summaries into the core, but again, the customer engineer > would not hear of it. > > the customer deliberately turns off CDP. I did not discuss this with him, > but I suspect there is a bit of concern with revealing information that CDP > transmits. > > my point in bringing up this situation was in part to stimulate thought > about using various forms of routing as one means of enforcing policy. > Static routing is not necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, there are > other ways to deal with the stated concerns other than massive static > routing. > > enjoyed the comments. thanks, everyone. > > Chuck > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Tony Medeiros > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 12:23 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes > [7:17826] > > > I'll bite: > PROS: > > 1) If DSL user decides to change his network for some reason and it overlaps > another on somewhere, dynamic routing will hose the core. (could prevent > with route filtering but that would be an even bigger hassle). > > 2) 7206 might fold with that many routing protocol neigbors (depends on > routing protocol) > > 3) Job security for the guy managing the network :) > > 4) ODR needs CDP and that many neighbors could fold the core too maybe ?? > Don't know about that. > > 5) Less overhead in general. > > 6) Security, Don't want some guy to announce a boatload of bogus networks. > > 7) Unless the routing protocol of choice can only send a default route, > Those little DSL routers would get killed with a big table. OSPF is would > do it but would each little router would need to be in it's own area or the > LS database would kill the little guys . RIP seems like a good choice, but > again, there would be need for a lot of filtering to keep the table small. > You could have a default static on all the little guys and filter ALL > updates coming out of the core. But there is the security thing again. > > 8) Stability, The static way will be the most stable for sure, > > CONS: > 1) Managment nightmare. > > I think I see their point already Chuck. I don't quite see why CDP wouldn't > be allowed though. > Am I close ? > Tony M. > > - Original Message - > From: "Chuck Larrieu" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:28 PM > Subject: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes [7:17819] > > > > I have a customer who... don't you love it when a post begins with those > > words? > > > > In my case, I am hoping this can serve as food for thought, a springboard > > for discussion. So here goes > > > > My customer is a high tech firm whose name you would all recognize, if I > > were to exhibit ill manners by revealing it. > > > > My project ( well, I'm just the junior assistant engineer ) is to develop >
Re: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes [7:18152]
Actually, when I mentioned bridging, I was only talking about the 827s. They should still have to route through the 7206 to reach each other. But, bridging is just a bad idea anyway. Instead, you could NAT the home side of the 827 to the address of the 827s wan interface. Each link between the 7206 and the 827s is a separate routed link, but the 7206 doesn't need to know about the networks behind the 827s. It only needs to know about the links that are directly connected. No bridging and no statics needed, and if the wan links are addressed properly, then they can all be summarized to the rest of the corporate network. Since security is a concern, then I would suggest an access list on the 827s to only allow established connections inbound. -Rob Fielding CCIE #7996 - Original Message - From: "Chuck Larrieu" To: "Rob Fielding" ; Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 5:07 PM Subject: RE: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes [7:18108] > yes - sheer numbers of devices in the shared bridging domain. we are talking > 500 to a thousand home users, many of whom are technically savvy folks who > may have reasons good or bad to connect multiple devices to the home part of > the remote access network. not to mention the fact that bridging would mean > direct and unrestricted access from each of these home guys to eachother. I > can just see the little rascals Code Redding eachother! ;-> > > Chuck > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Rob Fielding > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 9:58 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes > [7:18108] > > > I just quickly glanced at the 827 docs on cisco.com, so please correct me if > I'm wrong about them. According to the docs, you can configure the 827's > for bridging or NAT. You could avoid static routes on this edge of the > customer's network entirely (except for defaults on the 827's). The 7206 > would see all of the home networks as being directly connected. NAT > overload would probably be my first choice because the 827 could assign > addresses to the home pc's with DHCP, so the users wouldn't have to > configure anything, and any number of home pc's would just share the 827's > wan interface address. No need for statics at all. > Does the customer have any issues about this type of config? > > -Rob Fielding CCIE #7996 > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Chuck Larrieu" > To: > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:38 PM > Subject: RE: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes > [7:18038] > > > > There have been several good replies to my post. In addition to Tony's > > insight below, Leigh Anne and Jim both had excellent observations that > > covered issues my customer raised. > > > > The customer expressed concerns were with engineers who for any number of > > reasons, whether careless, inconsiderate, malicious, or as part of their > > jobs, might bring down various segments. this is something that apparently > > happens with some regularity in the customer production network. > > > > there were concerns with route flapping at the core. we are in California, > > after all, and we still live under the threat of rolling blackouts. plus > > many folks out here are doing their part by shutting things down at night, > > or when not in use. The flapping issue is bogus, as one could always > > advertise only the summaries into the core, but again, the customer > engineer > > would not hear of it. > > > > the customer deliberately turns off CDP. I did not discuss this with him, > > but I suspect there is a bit of concern with revealing information that > CDP > > transmits. > > > > my point in bringing up this situation was in part to stimulate thought > > about using various forms of routing as one means of enforcing policy. > > Static routing is not necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, there > are > > other ways to deal with the stated concerns other than massive static > > routing. > > > > enjoyed the comments. thanks, everyone. > > > > Chuck > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Tony Medeiros > > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 12:23 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes > > [7:17826] > > > > > > I'll bite: > > PROS: > > > > 1) If DSL user decides to change his network for some reason and
Passed Support 2.0 - New CCNP !
I just passed the Support 2.0 test with a score of 873. There were 61 questions, 692 required to pass. The test had some confusing questions, but it wasn't too bad. It did not have the technical detail I expected, but it still required very in-depth study. I used the CIT 4.0 course book, the Exam Cram book, boson #2, Priscilla Oppenheimer's flash cards, and threads on this list. Thank you, Priscilla for your excellent flash cards, and thanks to everyone on this list once again. -Rob Fielding CCNP, MCSE Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes [7:18189]
As far as address conservation goes, they're better off addressing the wan links between the 7206 and the 827's as /30, and letting the 827's provide dhcp address to the home users. The home networks can all be the same network (and 1000 duplicate addresses, who cares). As far as the rest of the network is concerned, there's only one address for each home network, the unique nat outside address of the 827. Using IP unnumbered on the wan links is only going to eat up more addresses because they will have to advertise the networks on the home side of the 827's. They can burn up 1000 /30s or 1000 /28s. The 827s can be build with a cookie cutter config. The only thing that needs to be different on each one is the wan ip address. Nobody needs to keep track of what addresses are in use at what house, no static address database is needed (for these 1000 links anyway - I don't know what the rest of their network looks like), and the home pc's could be built cooke cutter, too. They could save a ton of money on man hours if layer 8 wasn't in the way. -Rob Fielding CCIE #7996 - Original Message - From: "Chuck Larrieu" To: Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 6:43 AM Subject: RE: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes [7:18180] > you know something? That's an interesting idea! May I think out loud here? > > core_network7200--827--home_ > user > routed NAT<>inside_network > subinterfaces global outside<> who cares > what's inside? > > need an ip on the 7200 side and the 827 side - takes up two hosts of the /28 > the customer is specifying... > > well, let's see... there is still the matter of the home user inside > addressing. Care needs be taken because even though there is private > addressing in place, there is still the possibility of overlap with other > parts of the network. hhhmmm... > > on the 7200 side, all subnets are on directly connected interfaces. run the > routing protocol of choice, and summarize the subnets into the core. > eventually there will be several hundred /28's. at 16x28 per /24, that means > a lot of /24's eventually. if the customer played their cards right, they > could advertise what? a single /20 or so? maybe even a /19? > > for address conservation, the customer is insisting on ip unnumbered on the > links. I'm pondering the relative merits - does NAT'ing create more or less > work? Does it require more or fewer things to keep track of? on the other > hand, it does answer a number of the customer expressed concerns and > policies. > > You know, Rob, it would be a hell of a lot easier dealing with you than with > the particular group > I am dealing with. At least you have some creativity and some understanding > of the alternatives. I'll bet the two of us could come up with a solution > that would knock their socks off. So far I've had to listen to the bogus > route flapping argument ( "every time a DSL user turns off his equipment, > we'll see route flaps in our core" ) the bogus default route advertisement > argument > ( "these guys will connect a router at home and start advertising a default > that will screw up the entire company" ) ok, so we put them in their own > domain and redistribute with strict filtering. or we use On Demand Routing. > "well we don't want CDP running on these routers because it's insecure" OK. > I give up. "well we don't understand why you have to do it this way anyway. > when we were with X company all we did was use a static default" yes but X > company was an ISP and you were using a VPN with the associated overhead. > our solution is equivalent to a frame relay network, and can be treated > accordingly. and the final definitive argument, against which there is no > counter - "our policy does not allow routing to remote access users" > > As I said someplace else, the real issue here lies somewhere above layer 7. > Hey, Howard, at what layer are ignorance and lack of clue? ;-> > > Chuck > > -Original Message- > From: Rob Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 6:06 PM > To: Chuck Larrieu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I have a customer who... food for thought - static routes > [7:18108] > > > Actually, when I mentioned bridging, I was only talking about the 827s. > They should still have to route through the 7206 to reach each other. But, > bridging is just a bad idea anyway. Instead, you could NAT the home side of > the 827 to the address of the 827s wan interface. Each link between the > 7206 and the 827s is a separate route
