RE: CCDA Question [7:3180]
Yea It came straight from Cramsession's Question a day CCDA list. www.brainbuzz.com -Original Message- From: Darren Crawford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 9:37 AM To: Jim Dixon; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CCDA Question [7:3180] Where did you get this? We all know that there's a "deny all" at the end of an access list. At 10:13 AM 05/04/2001 -0400, Jim Dixon wrote: >Hello Group, > >I think this question has the wrong idea about which answer is correct here. >What does the group think? >Am I missing something? > >Sorry your Answer (E) is Incorrect! > >CCDA - Cisco Certified Design Associate >Access lists can be used to control traffic on an internetwork. What >statement is implied at the end of each access list? > >A - process all > >B - permit all > >C - broadcast all > >D - filter all > >E - deny all > >Correct Answer - A > >Explanation: deny all The ordering of access lists on a router is extremely >important. When a router receives a packet, it will test each packet against >each criteria in the access list statements. Once a match is found, the >processing stops and no more statements are checked for a match. If for some >reason, the packet does not match any of the criteria, the packet with be >blocked with the implicit "deny all" statement. >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Darren S. Crawford Lucent Technologies Worldwide Services 2377 Gold Meadow WayPhone: (916) 859-5200 x310 Suite 230 Fax: (916) 859-5201 Sacramento, CA 95670Pager: (800) 467-1467 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Epager: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucent.com Network Systems Consultant - CCNA, CCIE Written "Providing the Power Operable Networks." *** Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3197&t=3180 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCDA Question [7:3180]
looks like the question just has a mistake on the letter of the correct answer. Answer E is correct and the explanation says "deny all" Some practice exams aren't very good when they jumble up the order of the answers. The answer files don't adapt to the new letter an answer may get. I betcha at one time "deny all" was selection A. Nope, you're doing ok - in one way finding the mistakes is also a good study aid! :-) (I have sent many an email to our buddies at Boson) Kevin Wigle - Original Message - From: Jim Dixon To: Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 10:13 AM Subject: CCDA Question [7:3180] > Hello Group, > > I think this question has the wrong idea about which answer is correct here. > What does the group think? > Am I missing something? > > Sorry your Answer (E) is Incorrect! > > CCDA - Cisco Certified Design Associate > Access lists can be used to control traffic on an internetwork. What > statement is implied at the end of each access list? > > A - process all > > B - permit all > > C - broadcast all > > D - filter all > > E - deny all > > Correct Answer - A > > Explanation: deny all The ordering of access lists on a router is extremely > important. When a router receives a packet, it will test each packet against > each criteria in the access list statements. Once a match is found, the > processing stops and no more statements are checked for a match. If for some > reason, the packet does not match any of the criteria, the packet with be > blocked with the implicit "deny all" statement. > 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=3194&t=3180 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCDA Question [7:3180]
Where did you get this? We all know that there's a "deny all" at the end of an access list. At 10:13 AM 05/04/2001 -0400, Jim Dixon wrote: >Hello Group, > >I think this question has the wrong idea about which answer is correct here. >What does the group think? >Am I missing something? > >Sorry your Answer (E) is Incorrect! > >CCDA - Cisco Certified Design Associate >Access lists can be used to control traffic on an internetwork. What >statement is implied at the end of each access list? > >A - process all > >B - permit all > >C - broadcast all > >D - filter all > >E - deny all > >Correct Answer - A > >Explanation: deny all The ordering of access lists on a router is extremely >important. When a router receives a packet, it will test each packet against >each criteria in the access list statements. Once a match is found, the >processing stops and no more statements are checked for a match. If for some >reason, the packet does not match any of the criteria, the packet with be >blocked with the implicit "deny all" statement. >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Darren S. Crawford Lucent Technologies Worldwide Services 2377 Gold Meadow WayPhone: (916) 859-5200 x310 Suite 230 Fax: (916) 859-5201 Sacramento, CA 95670Pager: (800) 467-1467 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Epager: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucent.com Network Systems Consultant - CCNA, CCIE Written "Providing the Power Operable Networks." *** Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3190&t=3180 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCDA Question [7:3180]
Hello Group, I think this question has the wrong idea about which answer is correct here. What does the group think? Am I missing something? Sorry your Answer (E) is Incorrect! CCDA - Cisco Certified Design Associate Access lists can be used to control traffic on an internetwork. What statement is implied at the end of each access list? A - process all B - permit all C - broadcast all D - filter all E - deny all Correct Answer - A Explanation: deny all The ordering of access lists on a router is extremely important. When a router receives a packet, it will test each packet against each criteria in the access list statements. Once a match is found, the processing stops and no more statements are checked for a match. If for some reason, the packet does not match any of the criteria, the packet with be blocked with the implicit "deny all" statement. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=3180&t=3180 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CCDA question
Hi, I am preparing for CCDA. Could any one tell how important to remember bytes of each type of traffic. For example DDP=13bytes, GNS client broadcast=34bytes. Should i remember exact byte number or roughly size is okay for test? TIA _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCDA Question
Thanks, I will. Jeff ""Bharat Suneja"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 90gcmr$2ce$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:90gcmr$2ce$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I don't think the CCDA exam changed.. there's no old version new version > confusion here. I took it about couple of weeks ago - it's still the DCN > test 640-441. Go for it! > > Bharat Suneja > > > ""Jeff Douglas"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > 90ejil$nm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:90ejil$nm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I have recently passed the CCNA exam and I have the old version of the > Cisco > > Press CCDA book. Does this book contain enough information for me to be > > successful with the CCDA ver 2 exam? > > > > > > > > _ > > 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: CCDA Question
I don't think the CCDA exam changed.. there's no old version new version confusion here. I took it about couple of weeks ago - it's still the DCN test 640-441. Go for it! Bharat Suneja ""Jeff Douglas"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 90ejil$nm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:90ejil$nm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have recently passed the CCNA exam and I have the old version of the Cisco > Press CCDA book. Does this book contain enough information for me to be > successful with the CCDA ver 2 exam? > > > > _ > 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]
CCDA Question
I have recently passed the CCNA exam and I have the old version of the Cisco Press CCDA book. Does this book contain enough information for me to be successful with the CCDA ver 2 exam? _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCDA question
personally i felt that those examples in the book is not really of the same type/nature Jean-Michel Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message A0EBB9481596D311BC450008C72B661E10D537@VODACTMAIL1">news:A0EBB9481596D311BC450008C72B661E10D537@VODACTMAIL1... > Hi, > > Are the scenarios in the DCN book by Cisco Press similar to those in the > CCDA exam, what I mean by that is are the scenario questions good > preparation for the exam... would anyone recommend additional scenario type > question? And if so where can I get such question? > > Thanks, > > J-M > > ___ > 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] > ___ 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]
CCDA question
Hi, Are the scenarios in the DCN book by Cisco Press similar to those in the CCDA exam, what I mean by that is are the scenario questions good preparation for the exam... would anyone recommend additional scenario type question? And if so where can I get such question? Thanks, J-M ___ 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: CCDA question-512 bit times
That would depend on the size of your network and the switches you use. We are running an all switched network for everything from desktops to servers. Of course we aren't using Cisco (gasp) which brings the cost down. 100 + nodes, 5 24 port l2 switches 2 8 port L3 switches. - Original Message - From: "Mooney Drew-DMOONEY1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Marc Quibell'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Drew Mooney-DMOONEY1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 9:20 PM Subject: RE: CCDA question-512 bit times > -Original Message- > From: Marc Quibell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 5:41 PM > To: Drew Mooney-DMOONEY1; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: CCDA question-512 bit times > > > > The ideal network is a completely switched network, no hubs. No collisions > in full-duplex mode. > > *** Expensive solution though, yes? Any hard and fast rules concerning when > this level of service becomes justifiable? > > I could see providing a dedicated switch port to servers. Perhaps even > to a few power-users on a network - but to provide a dedicated port to > ALL users and network devices [eg printers/plotters] would cost a > fortune > in cabling & switches. > > ___ > 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] > ___ 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: CCDA question-512 bit times
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Mooney Drew-DMOONEY1 wrote: > Marc, > > I'm not sure I understand this. > > Let's say I have a hubbed network with 20 hosts. Lots of collisions. > > I bring a 4 port switch into it, and sub-divide it into 4 hubbed segments of > 5 hosts each. No collisions? Or just extremely low likelihood of collisions > on a given segment? You will get collisions within each of the 4 collision domains you have created. > > Extend the scenario - those 4 hubbed segments grow into 4 hubbed segments of > approximately 20 hosts each. Lots of collisions on each segment but no > collisions across segments? Or no collisions on any segment because it's > switched? You will get more collisions. You will not get collisions in the swithing fabric itself, collisions will be isolated to the individule collision domains you have created. > > I *thought* [don't know] the idea behind subdividing networks with switches > was to reduce the likelihood of collisions by introducing more and more > smaller network segments, and that as the number of hosts grows on a > particular segment, one needs to continuously subdivide to minimize the > likelihood of collisions. Today, switches are cheap (compared to long ago). It is common to give each machine its own dedicated switch port, in which case you will cut down on collisions drastically. If you run FDX on those ports, you will have no collisons. > > You and others in this thread seem to be saying that incorporating switches > into a network is to completely eliminate collisions. True? False? FDX/switched = no collisons HDX/switched = some collisons (on the wire between the nic and the switch port) if you just hang a hub off a switch port, then yes you can get collisons on the machine attached to that hub, and you cannot run FDX to the hub either. Brian > > Please clear this up for methanks. > > > Drew M. Mooney > Invisix -- Motorola and Cisco Together > 1334-394 The Alameda // San Jose, CA 95126 > 408-525-0873 [office] 408-287-3188 [home] > 817-937-7880 [mobile] 888-809-9678 [SkyTel Pager] > +44-(0)7715-055-944 UK Mobile > > > -Original Message- > From: Marc Quibell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 4:49 PM > To: Drew Mooney-DMOONEY1 > Subject: RE: CCDA question-512 bit times > > > I agree. Once you get out of the switched environmet, collisions will > occur... > > Marc > > > >From: Mooney Drew-DMOONEY1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "'Marc Quibell'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: CCDA question-512 bit times > >Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:25:51 -0500 > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Received: from [144.189.100.103] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id > >MHotMailBB49AD91008AD820F3C690BD646794EF0; Thu Jul 27 09:25:54 2000 > >Received: [from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by > >motgate3.mot.com (motgate3 2.1) with ESMTP id JAA11522 for > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:24:27 -0700 (MST)] > >Received: [from tx14exm02.ftw.mot.com ([178.1.100.242]) by mothost.mot.com > >(MOT-mothost 2.0) with ESMTP id JAA16879 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, > >27 Jul 2000 09:25:52 -0700 (MST)] > >Received: by tx14exm02.ftw.mot.com with Internet Mail Service > >(5.5.2650.21)id ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:25:51 -0500 > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 27 09:29:40 2000 > >Message-ID: > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) > > > >Ahhh - but suppose the switched segment is not to a single PC - but to a > >hubbed group of PC's. The switch in that case, minimizes the likelihood of > >collision, but won't entirely eliminate it. > > > >Two stations in the same segment are still able to attempt transmission > >simultaneously. > > > >Drew M. Mooney > >Invisix -- Motorola and Cisco Together > >1334-394 The Alameda // San Jose, CA 95126 > >408-525-0873 [office] 408-287-3188 [home] > >817-937-7880 [mobile] 888-809-9678 [SkyTel Pager] > >+44-(0)7715-055-944 UK Mobile > > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Marc Quibell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 8:51 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: CCDA question-512 bit times > > > > > >I think she answers in her book, in a roundabout way, that in FULL-DUPLEX > >mode, collisions are non-existant, since two stations can transmit at the > >same time on the wire (a switch and the PC or device on it's port, > >transmitting and receiving at the same time) > > > >Ma
RE: CCDA question-512 bit times
-Original Message- From: Marc Quibell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 5:41 PM To: Drew Mooney-DMOONEY1; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: CCDA question-512 bit times The ideal network is a completely switched network, no hubs. No collisions in full-duplex mode. *** Expensive solution though, yes? Any hard and fast rules concerning when this level of service becomes justifiable? I could see providing a dedicated switch port to servers. Perhaps even to a few power-users on a network - but to provide a dedicated port to ALL users and network devices [eg printers/plotters] would cost a fortune in cabling & switches. ___ 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: CCDA question-512 bit times
The way I see it Drew is that every switched port 'contains' a collision domain, which means the collisions are not propogated to other switched ports. I'll try to explain by commenting below: >Marc, > >I'm not sure I understand this. > >Let's say I have a hubbed network with 20 hosts. Lots of collisions. > >I bring a 4 port switch into it, and sub-divide it into 4 hubbed segments >of >5 hosts each. No collisions? Or just extremely low likelihood of collisions >on a given segment? Collisions will still occur within each switch port, because there are hubs attached. In other words, each port will still receive collisions from the 5 hosts. But the key is that each switched port 'contains' that collision domain, so that the collisions are not propogated onto the other swithed ports. > >Extend the scenario - those 4 hubbed segments grow into 4 hubbed segments >of >approximately 20 hosts each. Lots of collisions on each segment but no >collisions across segments? Or no collisions on any segment because it's >switched? No collisions extended across the switched ports. > >I *thought* [don't know] the idea behind subdividing networks with switches >was to reduce the likelihood of collisions by introducing more and more >smaller network segments, and that as the number of hosts grows on a >particular segment, one needs to continuously subdivide to minimize the >likelihood of collisions. The ideal network is a completely switched network, no hubs. No collisions in full-duplex mode. > >You and others in this thread seem to be saying that incorporating switches >into a network is to completely eliminate collisions. True? False? True, but only when eliminating the hubs. > >Please clear this up for methanks. I think you've got it all right Drew. But maybe I was unclear with my response. If you have a totally switched environment, no hubs, running full-duplex, no collisions will occur. > > >Drew M. Mooney >Invisix -- Motorola and Cisco Together >1334-394 The Alameda // San Jose, CA 95126 >408-525-0873 [office] 408-287-3188 [home] >817-937-7880 [mobile] 888-809-9678 [SkyTel Pager] >+44-(0)7715-055-944 UK Mobile > > >-----Original Message- >From: Marc Quibell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 4:49 PM >To: Drew Mooney-DMOONEY1 >Subject: RE: CCDA question-512 bit times > > >I agree. Once you get out of the switched environmet, collisions will >occur... > >Marc > > > >From: Mooney Drew-DMOONEY1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "'Marc Quibell'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: CCDA question-512 bit times > >Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:25:51 -0500 > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Received: from [144.189.100.103] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id > >MHotMailBB49AD91008AD820F3C690BD646794EF0; Thu Jul 27 09:25:54 2000 > >Received: [from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by > >motgate3.mot.com (motgate3 2.1) with ESMTP id JAA11522 for > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:24:27 -0700 (MST)] > >Received: [from tx14exm02.ftw.mot.com ([178.1.100.242]) by >mothost.mot.com > >(MOT-mothost 2.0) with ESMTP id JAA16879 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, > >27 Jul 2000 09:25:52 -0700 (MST)] > >Received: by tx14exm02.ftw.mot.com with Internet Mail Service > >(5.5.2650.21)id ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:25:51 -0500 > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 27 09:29:40 2000 > >Message-ID: > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) > > > >Ahhh - but suppose the switched segment is not to a single PC - but to a > >hubbed group of PC's. The switch in that case, minimizes the likelihood >of > >collision, but won't entirely eliminate it. > > > >Two stations in the same segment are still able to attempt transmission > >simultaneously. > > > >Drew M. Mooney > >Invisix -- Motorola and Cisco Together > >1334-394 The Alameda // San Jose, CA 95126 > >408-525-0873 [office] 408-287-3188 [home] > >817-937-7880 [mobile] 888-809-9678 [SkyTel Pager] > >+44-(0)7715-055-944 UK Mobile > > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Marc Quibell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 8:51 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: CCDA question-512 bit times > > > > > >I think she answers in her book, in a roundabout way, that in FULL-DUPLEX > >mode, collisions are non-existant, since two stations can transmit at the > >same time on the wire (a switch and the PC or device on it's port, > >tran
Re: CCDA question-512 bit times (simple) ;)
In a message dated 27.07.00 19:34:37 Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << You and others in this thread seem to be saying that incorporating switches into a network is to completely eliminate collisions. True? False? Please clear this up for methanks. >> It's not that segmenting will completely cure collisions, it's just that the fewer the better and that is what you get when you segment networks. If you had broadcast/protocol problems then your answer would be routing. Hope this helped but it looks like you knew the answer to your own question. :) Mark Zabludovsky ~ CCNA (Soon 2b CCDA) ___ 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: CCDA question-512 bit times
Marc, I'm not sure I understand this. Let's say I have a hubbed network with 20 hosts. Lots of collisions. I bring a 4 port switch into it, and sub-divide it into 4 hubbed segments of 5 hosts each. No collisions? Or just extremely low likelihood of collisions on a given segment? Extend the scenario - those 4 hubbed segments grow into 4 hubbed segments of approximately 20 hosts each. Lots of collisions on each segment but no collisions across segments? Or no collisions on any segment because it's switched? I *thought* [don't know] the idea behind subdividing networks with switches was to reduce the likelihood of collisions by introducing more and more smaller network segments, and that as the number of hosts grows on a particular segment, one needs to continuously subdivide to minimize the likelihood of collisions. You and others in this thread seem to be saying that incorporating switches into a network is to completely eliminate collisions. True? False? Please clear this up for methanks. Drew M. Mooney Invisix -- Motorola and Cisco Together 1334-394 The Alameda // San Jose, CA 95126 408-525-0873 [office] 408-287-3188 [home] 817-937-7880 [mobile] 888-809-9678 [SkyTel Pager] +44-(0)7715-055-944 UK Mobile -Original Message- From: Marc Quibell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 4:49 PM To: Drew Mooney-DMOONEY1 Subject: RE: CCDA question-512 bit times I agree. Once you get out of the switched environmet, collisions will occur... Marc >From: Mooney Drew-DMOONEY1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'Marc Quibell'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: CCDA question-512 bit times >Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:25:51 -0500 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from [144.189.100.103] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailBB49AD91008AD820F3C690BD646794EF0; Thu Jul 27 09:25:54 2000 >Received: [from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by >motgate3.mot.com (motgate3 2.1) with ESMTP id JAA11522 for ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:24:27 -0700 (MST)] >Received: [from tx14exm02.ftw.mot.com ([178.1.100.242]) by mothost.mot.com >(MOT-mothost 2.0) with ESMTP id JAA16879 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, >27 Jul 2000 09:25:52 -0700 (MST)] >Received: by tx14exm02.ftw.mot.com with Internet Mail Service >(5.5.2650.21)id ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:25:51 -0500 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 27 09:29:40 2000 >Message-ID: ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) > >Ahhh - but suppose the switched segment is not to a single PC - but to a >hubbed group of PC's. The switch in that case, minimizes the likelihood of >collision, but won't entirely eliminate it. > >Two stations in the same segment are still able to attempt transmission >simultaneously. > >Drew M. Mooney >Invisix -- Motorola and Cisco Together >1334-394 The Alameda // San Jose, CA 95126 >408-525-0873 [office] 408-287-3188 [home] >817-937-7880 [mobile] 888-809-9678 [SkyTel Pager] >+44-(0)7715-055-944 UK Mobile > > >-Original Message- >From: Marc Quibell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 8:51 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: CCDA question-512 bit times > > >I think she answers in her book, in a roundabout way, that in FULL-DUPLEX >mode, collisions are non-existant, since two stations can transmit at the >same time on the wire (a switch and the PC or device on it's port, >transmitting and receiving at the same time) > >Marc > > >"Steve Brokaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Well, I have a different question that kinda goes along here. If you >are >in a switched environment, i.e. dedicated bandwidth per port, how can you >have a collision at all? To me it seems (and Radia Perlmann touches on >this >in her book but doesn't give any explanation) that if there is no chance >for >a collision (switched environment) then why a distance limitation? I'm >sure >there are some other physics factors that would limit distance but would >they be the same as the distance required to detect a collision? > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > --Original Message-- > > From: "Randy Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: July 27, 2000 1:53:55 PM GMT > > Subject: CCDA question-512 bit times > > > > > > I have a question regarding the round-trip propagation delay on an >Ethernet network. > > > > Page 123 of the Cisco Press "Designing Cisco Networks" book states: > > > > "The most significant design rule for Ethernet is
Re: CCDA question-512 bit times
I think she answers in her book, in a roundabout way, that in FULL-DUPLEX mode, collisions are non-existant, since two stations can transmit at the same time on the wire (a switch and the PC or device on it's port, transmitting and receiving at the same time) Marc "Steve Brokaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Well, I have a different question that kinda goes along here. If you are in a switched environment, i.e. dedicated bandwidth per port, how can you have a collision at all? To me it seems (and Radia Perlmann touches on this in her book but doesn't give any explanation) that if there is no chance for a collision (switched environment) then why a distance limitation? I'm sure there are some other physics factors that would limit distance but would they be the same as the distance required to detect a collision? > > > Steve > > > --Original Message-- > From: "Randy Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: July 27, 2000 1:53:55 PM GMT > Subject: CCDA question-512 bit times > > > I have a question regarding the round-trip propagation delay on an Ethernet network. > > Page 123 of the Cisco Press "Designing Cisco Networks" book states: > > "The most significant design rule for Ethernet is that the round-trip propagation delay in one collision domain must not exceed 512 bit times, which is a requirement for collision detection to work correctly." > > With 100Mbps Ethernet, the maximum round-trip delay would be 5.12 seconds, resulting in a distance limitation of 205 meters. > > I currently oversee a large flat network covering several miles in diameter. All of the links between buildings are single-mode fiber links. No routing is involved, everything is switched - one large broadcast domain. > > How does the 512 bit time rule apply to fiber optic cabling? I see on page 127 of the same book that the Round trip delay in bit times per meter for Cat5 cable is 1.112, whereas Fiber-optic cable it's 1.0. > > I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how fiber can overcome the 512 bit-time rule and can have a much longer distance. > > I do realize that this is not exactly a Cisco question, though covered on the DCN/CCDA material. If someone could kindly refer me to any material that covers this topic, I'd appreciate it. > > ___ > 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] > Steve Brokaw, MCSE CCNA > Sprint Enterprise Network Services > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (pager) > > > *** > > Never mistake motion for action. > > -- Ernest Hemingway > *** > > > ___ > 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] > --- ___ 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: CCDA question-512 bit times
Even though you are in a switched enviroment, if you are running HALF duplex you will still encounter collisions. --- Steve Brokaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I have a different question that kinda goes > along here. If you are in a switched environment, > i.e. dedicated bandwidth per port, how can you have > a collision at all? To me it seems (and Radia > Perlmann touches on this in her book but doesn't > give any explanation) that if there is no chance for > a collision (switched environment) then why a > distance limitation? I'm sure there are some other > physics factors that would limit distance but would > they be the same as the distance required to detect > a collision? > > > Steve > > > --Original Message-- > From: "Randy Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: July 27, 2000 1:53:55 PM GMT > Subject: CCDA question-512 bit times > > > I have a question regarding the round-trip > propagation delay on an Ethernet network. > > Page 123 of the Cisco Press "Designing Cisco > Networks" book states: > > "The most significant design rule for Ethernet is > that the round-trip propagation delay in one > collision domain must not exceed 512 bit times, > which is a requirement for collision detection to > work correctly." > > With 100Mbps Ethernet, the maximum round-trip delay > would be 5.12 seconds, resulting in a distance > limitation of 205 meters. > > I currently oversee a large flat network covering > several miles in diameter. All of the links between > buildings are single-mode fiber links. No routing > is involved, everything is switched - one large > broadcast domain. > > How does the 512 bit time rule apply to fiber optic > cabling? I see on page 127 of the same book that > the Round trip delay in bit times per meter for Cat5 > cable is 1.112, whereas Fiber-optic cable it's 1.0. > > I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how > fiber can overcome the 512 bit-time rule and can > have a much longer distance. > > I do realize that this is not exactly a Cisco > question, though covered on the DCN/CCDA material. > If someone could kindly refer me to any material > that covers this topic, I'd appreciate it. > > ___ > 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] > Steve Brokaw, MCSE CCNA > Sprint Enterprise Network Services > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (pager) > > > *** > > Never mistake motion for action. > > -- Ernest Hemingway > *** > > > ___ > 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] > > > = William Swedberg CCNP CCDP __ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.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: CCDA question-512 bit times
Hello, Be carefull with collision domain and broadcast domain definitions. You might indeed have a single broadcast domain including multiple collision domains. (Especially with switched ethernet segments.) Each ethernet switch port is a seperate collision domain, either UTP or fiber. However, if you consider Fast Ethernet HUBs, you should think about collision domains. 51.2 bit time comes into play here, and 205 mt. is a distance limitation in fast ethernet hub installations. Remember that you can not cross connect two Type-II Fast Ethernet hubs more than 5 mt. apart, which justifies 205 mt. ( Two hosts connected with 100mt max UTP cable to each hub plus 5 mt maximum hub distance sums up to 205 mt maximum distance between any two hosts on a Fast ethernet, hub-only network. ) Besides, fiber ports run full duplex which prevents collisions. If you have a port with collision possibility, you still have the distance limitation. Fiber distance limitations have much to do with signal attenuation, Laser or led used in transmitting circuits, gain-bandwidth product of the cable, etc. than the collisions. (List, am I correct at Type-II hubs, or was that type-I ?) HTH, Ufuk. "Randy Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 27.07.2000 16:53:55 Department: Please respond to "Randy Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: UFUK YASIBEYLI/FINANSBANK) Subject: CCDA question-512 bit times I have a question regarding the round-trip propagation delay on an Ethernet network. Page 123 of the Cisco Press "Designing Cisco Networks" book states: "The most significant design rule for Ethernet is that the round-trip propagation delay in one collision domain must not exceed 512 bit times, which is a requirement for collision detection to work correctly." With 100Mbps Ethernet, the maximum round-trip delay would be 5.12 seconds, resulting in a distance limitation of 205 meters. I currently oversee a large flat network covering several miles in diameter. All of the links between buildings are single-mode fiber links. No routing is involved, everything is switched - one large broadcast domain. How does the 512 bit time rule apply to fiber optic cabling? I see on page 127 of the same book that the Round trip delay in bit times per meter for Cat5 cable is 1.112, whereas Fiber-optic cable it's 1.0. I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how fiber can overcome the 512 bit-time rule and can have a much longer distance. I do realize that this is not exactly a Cisco question, though covered on the DCN/CCDA material. If someone could kindly refer me to any material that covers this topic, I'd appreciate it. ___ 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] ___ 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: CCDA question-512 bit times
Fibre doesn't actually break the 512 bit-time rule. You still need to keep your network under 512 bit-times from worst-case station to station. Fibre can have the longer lengths because it doesn't sucumb to attenuation as fast as copper. The differences in propegation time between copper and fibre are very slight. And, if you didn't have to worry about attenuation you could run 412 meters on fibre and 370 meters on copper. Take a look at your network, find the two stations that are seperated by the most cable and devices, and then follow the fomula in the book, and see what sort of number you come up with. If you think it is completely off, send a little ascii art picture showing what cable lengths and devices are in there. Mike > >I have a question regarding the round-trip propagation delay on an Ethernet >network. > >Page 123 of the Cisco Press "Designing Cisco Networks" book states: > >"The most significant design rule for Ethernet is that the round-trip >propagation delay in one collision domain must not exceed 512 bit times, >which is a requirement for collision detection to work correctly." > >With 100Mbps Ethernet, the maximum round-trip delay would be 5.12 seconds, >resulting in a distance limitation of 205 meters. > >I currently oversee a large flat network covering several miles in >diameter. All of the links between buildings are single-mode fiber links. >No routing is involved, everything is switched - one large broadcast >domain. > >How does the 512 bit time rule apply to fiber optic cabling? I see on page >127 of the same book that the Round trip delay in bit times per meter for >Cat5 cable is 1.112, whereas Fiber-optic cable it's 1.0. > >I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how fiber can overcome the 512 >bit-time rule and can have a much longer distance. > >I do realize that this is not exactly a Cisco question, though covered on >the DCN/CCDA material. If someone could kindly refer me to any material >that covers this topic, I'd appreciate it. > >___ >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] 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: CCDA question-512 bit times
Well, I have a different question that kinda goes along here. If you are in a switched environment, i.e. dedicated bandwidth per port, how can you have a collision at all? To me it seems (and Radia Perlmann touches on this in her book but doesn't give any explanation) that if there is no chance for a collision (switched environment) then why a distance limitation? I'm sure there are some other physics factors that would limit distance but would they be the same as the distance required to detect a collision? Steve --Original Message-- From: "Randy Witt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 27, 2000 1:53:55 PM GMT Subject: CCDA question-512 bit times I have a question regarding the round-trip propagation delay on an Ethernet network. Page 123 of the Cisco Press "Designing Cisco Networks" book states: "The most significant design rule for Ethernet is that the round-trip propagation delay in one collision domain must not exceed 512 bit times, which is a requirement for collision detection to work correctly." With 100Mbps Ethernet, the maximum round-trip delay would be 5.12 seconds, resulting in a distance limitation of 205 meters. I currently oversee a large flat network covering several miles in diameter. All of the links between buildings are single-mode fiber links. No routing is involved, everything is switched - one large broadcast domain. How does the 512 bit time rule apply to fiber optic cabling? I see on page 127 of the same book that the Round trip delay in bit times per meter for Cat5 cable is 1.112, whereas Fiber-optic cable it's 1.0. I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how fiber can overcome the 512 bit-time rule and can have a much longer distance. I do realize that this is not exactly a Cisco question, though covered on the DCN/CCDA material. If someone could kindly refer me to any material that covers this topic, I'd appreciate it. ___ 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] Steve Brokaw, MCSE CCNA Sprint Enterprise Network Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (pager) *** Never mistake motion for action. -- Ernest Hemingway *** ___ 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]
CCDA question-512 bit times
I have a question regarding the round-trip propagation delay on an Ethernet network. Page 123 of the Cisco Press "Designing Cisco Networks" book states: "The most significant design rule for Ethernet is that the round-trip propagation delay in one collision domain must not exceed 512 bit times, which is a requirement for collision detection to work correctly." With 100Mbps Ethernet, the maximum round-trip delay would be 5.12 seconds, resulting in a distance limitation of 205 meters. I currently oversee a large flat network covering several miles in diameter. All of the links between buildings are single-mode fiber links. No routing is involved, everything is switched - one large broadcast domain. How does the 512 bit time rule apply to fiber optic cabling? I see on page 127 of the same book that the Round trip delay in bit times per meter for Cat5 cable is 1.112, whereas Fiber-optic cable it's 1.0. I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how fiber can overcome the 512 bit-time rule and can have a much longer distance. I do realize that this is not exactly a Cisco question, though covered on the DCN/CCDA material. If someone could kindly refer me to any material that covers this topic, I'd appreciate it. ___ 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: CCDA question samples..!!
Don't forget .. www.thetestpage.net Adam Hickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Atif Awan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mehmet Erkul (Garanti Teknoloji)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 8:08 AM Subject: Re: CCDA question samples..!! > here u go .. hope this helps > > http://www.rohlin.com/helpdesk/ccda.htm > > www.networkking.net/CCDA > > Rgards > Atif Awan > > -Original Message- > From: Mehmet Erkul (Garanti Teknoloji) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Monday, May 29, 2000 9:35 PM > Subject: CCDA question samples..!! > > > > > > hi all, > > one of the guys had sent a url for sample questions of CCDA, which i lost > >accidentally.. > > would he send it again please..also i would like recommandations for books > >for this > >test, > > > > thanks from now on.. > > > >___ > >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] > > > > ___ > 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] > ___ 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: CCDA question samples..!!
here u go .. hope this helps http://www.rohlin.com/helpdesk/ccda.htm www.networkking.net/CCDA Rgards Atif Awan -Original Message- From: Mehmet Erkul (Garanti Teknoloji) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, May 29, 2000 9:35 PM Subject: CCDA question samples..!! > > hi all, > one of the guys had sent a url for sample questions of CCDA, which i lost >accidentally.. > would he send it again please..also i would like recommandations for books >for this >test, > > thanks from now on.. > >___ >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] > ___ 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]
CCDA question samples..!!
hi all, one of the guys had sent a url for sample questions of CCDA, which i lost accidentally.. would he send it again please..also i would like recommandations for books for this test, thanks from now on.. ___ 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]
