Re: Citrix is faster via Internet than LAN/WAN
We had had the same issues and a similiar situation. We enabled priority queueing for a time (Which worked great) and then moved to a custom queue as our Citrix traffic increased and started hogging all the bandwidth. This made quite a difference of course and may be something you wanna try. Original Message- From: Germain, PJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:19 AM Subject: Citrix is faster via Internet than LAN/WAN >Hello all ! >I'm hoping someone out there can help me with this. We are stumped. >We are running the latest version of Citrix on an 8 server ( Proliant 6400) >farm. >Internally, we get to it via a couple of 2948G switches and a 3660 Core >Router. > >But, if I go to one of our remotes sites that has a DSL connection to the >Internet, they access our Citrix farm through our 2612 Internet router, then >a Catalyst 2900 switch (DMZ), then through our PIX, then another 2948G, BUT >they apparently bypass the 3660 and get to the farm. > >External access has much quicker response times than internal. The only >difference I see is the 3660 router. >We have 30 WAN sites and about 150 LAN hosts working through the 3660, but >the CPU usage and Memory are not hurting. Could this difference just be a >"traffic shaping" issue or is there something that I am just missing??? We >have only a basic config on the 3660. > >Any assistance would be much appreciated. >Thank you very much, in advance. > >P.J. Germain >Network Support Engineer >Cooper / T. Smith > >_ >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: Lad scheduling question
You have 3 years to complete the CCIE lab. You must make your first attempt within 12 months of the written. If you fail the first time you still have the balance of the three years to complete it. -Original Message- From: Arthur Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Lad scheduling question >Don't you want to arrange it so that, if you do have to take the lab a >second time, it will still be within the 12 month limit(written to lab)? >I'm not saying you won't pass it the first time. > >Arthur Stewart > > >"John Hardman" wrote in message <96jh6m$avo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... >>Hi All >> >>With a little more study I will pass the written this month, and I am >>starting to wonder more about the process of scheduling the lab. >> >>I plan to use the SJ lab... So here is the question. Can I schedule the lab >>for a specific date? Yes I know there is a back log till August or later, >>but I more interested in a longer date, I am thinking 10 or 11 months after >>the written. I have quite a few big projects coming up at work, and it will >>be hard to keep my "study" mind set and energy, so the extended time will >>benefit me. >> >>TIA >>-- >>John Hardman CCNP MCSE+I >> >> >> >> >>_ >>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]
Re: Firewalls and VPNs
Maybe it is because it does not base forwarding decisions on layer 3 info alone but also takes into account layer 4 and 7 info as well? -Original Message- From: haroldnjoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, February 16, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: Firewalls and VPNs >I've read here a couple of times that PIX's don't route. Period. In light of >this I'm left a little confused as to a proposed network map I was given >recently. > >The core layer router is a 3640 linking all of our branch offices together. >From the 3640, there is an ethernet connection to a PIX 515R. From the PIX, >there is another ethernet connection to a 1750 router. The 1750 connects via >T1 to our ISP. There is yet another ethernet connection from the PIX to the >isolation lan, on which resides an internet mail/web server and a VPN 3000 >concentrator. > >If PIX's don't route, what subnet is the isolation lan going to sit on? As >I understand it, the PIX will be providing NAT functionality for the 3640 >and everything behind it. So I would assume that the T1 and ethernet >interfaces on the 1750, the outside interfaces on the PIX, and everything in >the isolation lan including the VPN concentrator will have to have public IP >addresses which will be given to us by our ISP. The way the map is layed >out, it looks to me like the isolation lan would have to be on its own >subnet. > >What am I missing? If the PIX doesn't route, do it's ethernet interfaces >reside on the same subnet as the isolation lan? If so, then the ethernet >interface on the 1750 must also be on that subnet, right? > >This is the proposed network map that Cisco's presale engineers gave me. >I'm sure it's a solid design, but I'm still trying to work out the details >so that I understand what I'm implementing (always a good thing, I think). > >Thanks for your time, > >[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]
Re: Firewalls and VPNs
I think this comes from the fact that cisco instructors in class say that the Pix is not a router. I have heard this as well when I had the class. I know the Pix is not a router, but does it route? Well, if making decisions about where to send traffic based on layer 3 info is routing then I would argue it does route. It does not forward traffic based on layer 2 info so .. It routes traffic to the appropriate interface. Can someone else shed some light as to why this is said. If it doesn't route the traffic it recieves what does it do? -Original Message- From: haroldnjoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, February 16, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: Firewalls and VPNs >I've read here a couple of times that PIX's don't route. Period. In light of >this I'm left a little confused as to a proposed network map I was given >recently. > >The core layer router is a 3640 linking all of our branch offices together. >From the 3640, there is an ethernet connection to a PIX 515R. From the PIX, >there is another ethernet connection to a 1750 router. The 1750 connects via >T1 to our ISP. There is yet another ethernet connection from the PIX to the >isolation lan, on which resides an internet mail/web server and a VPN 3000 >concentrator. > >If PIX's don't route, what subnet is the isolation lan going to sit on? As >I understand it, the PIX will be providing NAT functionality for the 3640 >and everything behind it. So I would assume that the T1 and ethernet >interfaces on the 1750, the outside interfaces on the PIX, and everything in >the isolation lan including the VPN concentrator will have to have public IP >addresses which will be given to us by our ISP. The way the map is layed >out, it looks to me like the isolation lan would have to be on its own >subnet. > >What am I missing? If the PIX doesn't route, do it's ethernet interfaces >reside on the same subnet as the isolation lan? If so, then the ethernet >interface on the 1750 must also be on that subnet, right? > >This is the proposed network map that Cisco's presale engineers gave me. >I'm sure it's a solid design, but I'm still trying to work out the details >so that I understand what I'm implementing (always a good thing, I think). > >Thanks for your time, > >[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]
Re: Number of new CCIE's (off topic)
I do apologize to Rene as it would appear this rant is a direct result of his/her post. And the topic of the Group is Lab study so he/she is right. But there has to be some grey area right? I mean there are many off topic posts that generate some very good discussions. Although this one is off topic I think it has some real merit and should be watched closely. I was asked if I would stop persuing the CCIE if there was to many. No, but I would not persue it if it didn't mean much and it was terribly easy to pass. What would be the point. I am already very good at what I do so why persue it now? Because it is percieved as meaning you are on of the best. You are top-notch and know what you are talking about. It is the Ph.D of network certs. Of course that does not always apply to every individual, but that is how the CCIE is percieved. If it wasn't seen that way why would anyone want it? -Original Message----- From: mtieast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 1:57 PM Subject: Fw: Number of new CCIE's (off topic) > > > >Sorry, I must rant. > >The Dr./lawyer analogy does not fly. If you could pay 100 bucks and be an >M.D. or $200.00 to pass the bar without any real merit your damn right >Doctors and Lawyers would be >up in arms about it., they would be discussing and fighting all the way. Not >to mention the patients and clients. I do agree however even in a situation >such as this that if your good your good and people will see that and you >will be paid and treated appropriatly. > >I also love it when one or 2 people decide what should or shouldn't be on a >list >they simply belong to with thousands of others who may be interested in >discussing a topic related to Cisco Certification. A very valid concern in >my mind. > > Instead of simply moving on you contribute to this supposed waste of >bandwidth and time, and then on top of that to try and dictate what does or >doesn't belong on the list. > >If this topic was not for you why not just pass it by or delete instead of >participating in it only to tell all the others who have an interest that it >does or does not belong >on a list that is not yours. > >You can tell by the subject what it is about. move on. > >This is not specific to this thread, I have seen it many times. Sometimes >things clearly are not on topic but it is still discussed without comment. >This is very close to topic and although I agree that if your good your good >and you don't have to worry many people would like to discuss it. Especially >if Cisco really does open the flood gates. > > > > > > > >>-Original Message- >>From: Rene Mendoza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 1:04 PM >>Subject: Re: Number of new CCIE's (off topic) >> >> >>>Kenneth has read my mind exactly. This whole thread or future similar >>types of >>>threads do not belong here. We are wasting bandwidth and time replying to >>these >>>postings. Let's just keep concentrating on our studies please! >>> >>> >>>Kenneth Sacca wrote: >>> >>>> Jeez this topic is boring and so out of touch with >>>> reality. I bet most of the complainers here are >>>> former MCSE, CNE, ASE, A+ and all of those other >>>> certification holders. >>>> >>>> Your career isn't based on a certification. You >>>> will never have a little fraternity of 5000 CCIEs >>>> worldwide, where no one else can join the club. >>>> Do you think lawyers or doctors write about this >>>> crap all the time when a new class of people pass >>>> the bar and medical board exams? Do CPAs complain >>>> that the passing rate was 60% for their exam? Do >>>> CEOs complain about each class that graduates from >>>> Harvard Business school? >>>> >>>> What you do on the job matters. If you are good, >>>> then the money will come. If you suck, no matter >>>> what your cert, you will be paid what you are worth. >>>> Excel individually as a person, and stop worrying >>>> about this crap. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> >>>> > X-Originating-IP: [213.120.56.45] >>>> > From: "Mark Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> > Subject: RE: Number of new CCIE's (off topic) >>>> > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:07:40 >>>> >
Fw: Number of new CCIE's (off topic)
Sorry, I must rant. The Dr./lawyer analogy does not fly. If you could pay 100 bucks and be an M.D. or $200.00 to pass the bar without any real merit your damn right Doctors and Lawyers would be up in arms about it., they would be discussing and fighting all the way. Not to mention the patients and clients. I do agree however even in a situation such as this that if your good your good and people will see that and you will be paid and treated appropriatly. I also love it when one or 2 people decide what should or shouldn't be on a list they simply belong to with thousands of others who may be interested in discussing a topic related to Cisco Certification. A very valid concern in my mind. Instead of simply moving on you contribute to this supposed waste of bandwidth and time, and then on top of that to try and dictate what does or doesn't belong on the list. If this topic was not for you why not just pass it by or delete instead of participating in it only to tell all the others who have an interest that it does or does not belong on a list that is not yours. You can tell by the subject what it is about. move on. This is not specific to this thread, I have seen it many times. Sometimes things clearly are not on topic but it is still discussed without comment. This is very close to topic and although I agree that if your good your good and you don't have to worry many people would like to discuss it. Especially if Cisco really does open the flood gates. >-Original Message- >From: Rene Mendoza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 1:04 PM >Subject: Re: Number of new CCIE's (off topic) > > >>Kenneth has read my mind exactly. This whole thread or future similar >types of >>threads do not belong here. We are wasting bandwidth and time replying to >these >>postings. Let's just keep concentrating on our studies please! >> >> >>Kenneth Sacca wrote: >> >>> Jeez this topic is boring and so out of touch with >>> reality. I bet most of the complainers here are >>> former MCSE, CNE, ASE, A+ and all of those other >>> certification holders. >>> >>> Your career isn't based on a certification. You >>> will never have a little fraternity of 5000 CCIEs >>> worldwide, where no one else can join the club. >>> Do you think lawyers or doctors write about this >>> crap all the time when a new class of people pass >>> the bar and medical board exams? Do CPAs complain >>> that the passing rate was 60% for their exam? Do >>> CEOs complain about each class that graduates from >>> Harvard Business school? >>> >>> What you do on the job matters. If you are good, >>> then the money will come. If you suck, no matter >>> what your cert, you will be paid what you are worth. >>> Excel individually as a person, and stop worrying >>> about this crap. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> > X-Originating-IP: [213.120.56.45] >>> > From: "Mark Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > Subject: RE: Number of new CCIE's (off topic) >>> > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:07:40 >>> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Feb 2001 17:07:40.0605 (UTC) >>> FILETIME=[CDCA26D0:01C09771] >>> > >>> > >>> > IF this is true, I'll be really pd off with Cisco - all that hard >work, >>> > and now the cert is going down the toilet. >>> > >>> > Mark >>> > CCIE#6280 >>> > >>> > >From: "Yurchenko, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > >Reply-To: "Yurchenko, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > >To: "'Jason T. Rohm'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"CCIELIST (E-mail)" >>> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > >Subject: RE: Number of new CCIE's (off topic) >>> > >Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:27:33 -0500 >>> > > >>> > >Well, recently I have seen a post that all 5 individuals who attempted >the >>> > >test passed it successfully, and it looks like the rate at which the >new >>> > >CCIEs are being produced - close to 200 a month - would lead me to >believe >>> > >that we could possibly hit 1 by the end of the year. >>> > > >>> > >Michael Yurchenko >>> > >CCIE# 6695, CCDP, CCNP ATM Specialist, MCSE >>> > >Customer Support Engineer - 2 >>> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > >610-407-2154 >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >-Original Message- >>> > >From: Jason T. Rohm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>> > >Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 11:16 AM >>> > >To: CCIELIST (E-mail) >>> > >Subject: Number of new CCIE's (off topic) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >I just got my CCIE a few days ago and was disapointed at how easy the >test >>> > >was (by comparision to my other attempts). >>> > > >>> > >The raw number of new CCIE in the last few weeks seems to confirm that >the >>> > >new tests are infact easier than the old ones. >>> > > >>> > >While I am quite happy to have passed, I am also quite concerned that >the >>> > >number of CCIEs is going to double this year with the newly watered >down >>> > >tests and bigger labs. >>> > > >>> > >Does anyone else have a comment on this? >>> > > >>> > >Thank you, >>> > > >>> > >
Re: alternative to Cisco routers
Why would you not trust a Linux box to route? What experience or documentation do you have that would lead you to believe that a properly configured Linux box could not or would not do the job. There are a lot of companies using Linux these days. One of largest distributed processing systems is based on large linux clusters, most of Mariott's reservation system is based on it. Lot's of ISP's use it as their core e-mail, and web systems, and I have seen some departmental use of Linux or Windows NT machines being used as routers. A cisco router is not that much different in architecture. At the highest level, It is a processor that runs a unix kernel based OS with some NIC or serial interfaces and an application designed specifically for routing. The real difference is in the software that runs on the router. There is no special ASIC's or processors on the router. IT is a computer (less intel pentium processor except in the PIX) w/o the added multimedia and I/O hardware, driven by a unix kernel running software , very similiar to any other computer. The real difference is in the application, or software it runs, not it's hardware architecure. My understanding is that some of the processors found in the router are the same that can be found in certain Apple or Macintosh PC's and other non-windows based cpu's. This is my humble opinion based on my limited knowledge of the router architecture. However I agree that it would not be appropriate to place a linux box at the core of your network there are certainly times or applications and solutions where it would be fine. It is not designed specifically for routing, but it will certainly do the job if simple routing is all that is needed. -Original Message- From: William E. Gragido <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'anthony kim' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 10:47 PM Subject: RE: alternative to Cisco routers >Are you serious? You would use a Linux box in place of a router Are you >mad man? I mean, I am as much a fan of Linux as the next geek, however I >would not entrust routing/switching duties to it. > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >anthony kim >Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 7:24 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: alternative to Cisco routers > > >This is all well and good for the big time players, ISPs, big corps >yadda yadda yadda, and companies with cash to burn like so much old toilet >paper. The Small and Midsized Business market (SMB) almost always can >accomplish what they want with free Unix or Linux for layer 3 and >cheap stackable switches with or without 802.1q support. > >So my obligatory cisco alternative: >www.zebra.org > >On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 04:00:36PM -0600, William E. Gragido wrote: >>There ServerIronXL Layer 4-7 switches are pretty cool boxes as well. >>Foundry is also pretty nice in that their command line interface is awfully >>reminiscent of Cisco's. The transition from one to the other should not be >>too difficult. >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Christopher Kolp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:41 PM >>To: 'Brant Stevens'; 'William E. Gragido'; 'Howard C. Berkowitz'; >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: alternative to Cisco routers >> >> >>Foundry prices are killer and the performance is top notch. >> >>We're planning a roll out with 40 OC-12 POS. Guess who our preferred >>provider is? >> >>None other than foundry. >> >>-ck >> >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >>Brant Stevens >>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:28 PM >>To: William E. Gragido; 'Howard C. Berkowitz'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: alternative to Cisco routers >> >> >>Not to mention Foundry... >> >>Brant I. Stevens >>Internetwork Solutions Engineer >>Thrupoint, Inc. >>545 Fifth Avenue, 14th Floor >>New York, NY. 10017 >>646-562-6540 >> >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >>William E. Gragido >>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2:47 PM >>To: 'Howard C. Berkowitz'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: alternative to Cisco routers >> >> >>Riding on the coat tails of Howard's comments, there are also other players >>out there like Lucent(home of the Nexibit N64000 Terabit Switch Router and >>the Ascend product lines), Avici, Charlette's Web, Nortel etc., that offer >>carrier grade solutions. >> >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >>Howard C. Berkowitz >>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:20 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: alternative to Cisco routers >> >> >>A few comments, in which I think I am being reasonably objective. >> >>On this list, people periodically speak of the joys of Cisco, because >>it offers end-to-end solutions. That is a very enterprise-oriented >>view. >> >>Much more than in the enterp
Re: alternative to Cisco routers
Cisco is not the Webster dictionary of technology even though we are all trying for their prized certificates. If you ask Novell, SUN, or Microsoft they will also tell you that their OS' can facilitate routing and they will even call them routers when configured as such. IMHO (And according to a couple of telecom dictionaries) A router is any device that uses layer 3 info to make forwarding decisions. -Original Message- From: anthony kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: John Nemeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fowler, Robert J. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 1:27 PM Subject: RE: alternative to Cisco routers > >--- John Nemeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> } >> } Is a real router a device which routes layer 3 packets? Or a >> device >> } "specifically designed" to route layer 3 packets. Your statement >> } implies the latter. Whereas I believe the former. >> >> The latter. A PC make be able to route packets, but that >> doesn't >> make it a real router. The hardware device is going to be faster >> (especially at the high end), more reliable, require much less >> maintenance (which makes it cheaper in the long run), and easier to >> install and setup (not to mention take up far less space). > >John, you've just added qualifications to the definition of a real >router. Am I correct then in saying you believe a real router is > >a) a device that routes layer 3 packets >b) a device strictly designed to route layer 3 packets >c) a device that routes layer 3 fast and reliably >d) all of the above > >The cisco exam answer is: d) >I'm just too damn liberal with my definitions so would have chosen a) > >> I'm a >> huge >> fan of UNIX and will tend to run just about everything on UNIX >> systems, >> but even I realise that UNIX host based systems are not the correct >> solution for every problem. > > >Agreed. > > >> >> } You *will* learn about real routers because the pc is a real >> router. >> } You may *not learn* anything about IOS or $VENDOR's routers. >> >> That is the purpose of getting Cisco certs... >> >> }-- End of excerpt from anthony kim > > >Thus our raison d'etre. > >anthony > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 >a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > >_ >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: alternative to Cisco routers
I like the use of "real router". What is a "real" router. Routers route using layer 3 info. PC's are and can be made routers. And yes they are "real" routers. -Original Message- From: John Nemeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: anthony kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fowler, Robert J. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 1:14 PM Subject: RE: alternative to Cisco routers >On May 31, 8:23pm, anthony kim wrote: >} --- John Nemeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >} > On Jul 7, 4:07am, "Fowler, Robert J." wrote: >} > } >} > } However it might be a good choice for someone who is building a >} > home lab. It >} > } is much cheaper to piece together some computers and throw zebra >} > on it than >} > } to buy several routers. I've never used Zebra but it sounds like >} > if you had >} > } some existing equipment and wanted to expand on that, couldn't >} > afford to buy >} > } another router but had some old PC's it would be the way to go, >} > since >} > } speed/reliability wouldn't be a real factor in a home lab. Any >} > thoughts? >} > >} > Although, you may learn something about the protocols, you >} > won't >} > learn anything about real routers. You definitely need to get >} > hands on >} > with real routers. Zebra could be used to simulate a secondary >} > router >} > in a multi-router experiment, but it isn't sufficient by itself. >} >} Is a real router a device which routes layer 3 packets? Or a device >} "specifically designed" to route layer 3 packets. Your statement >} implies the latter. Whereas I believe the former. > > The latter. A PC make be able to route packets, but that doesn't >make it a real router. The hardware device is going to be faster >(especially at the high end), more reliable, require much less >maintenance (which makes it cheaper in the long run), and easier to >install and setup (not to mention take up far less space). I'm a huge >fan of UNIX and will tend to run just about everything on UNIX systems, >but even I realise that UNIX host based systems are not the correct >solution for every problem. > >} You *will* learn about real routers because the pc is a real router. >} You may *not learn* anything about IOS or $VENDOR's routers. > > That is the purpose of getting Cisco certs... > >}-- End of excerpt from anthony kim > >_ >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]
