NAI 4.5 works on Windows 2000 if you have a NIC they support.
I can confirm that it works with Xircom RealPort cards (note: it did NOT
work pre-service release)
"Christopher Supino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@groupstudy.com on 02/12/2001
01:11:49 PM
Please respond to "Christopher Supino" <[EMAIL P
I can discern 2 indirect relationships:
1. For people who are bored after achieving CCIE status in 2 or more of the
possible tracks AND are desparately seeking to differentiate themselves
from all the other CCIEs out there (since it's presumably a little less
exclusive each time a new # is doled
I'd reccomend the free upgrade to the native hyperterminal client
it addresses known bugs with the nt version (based on past experience, i
now assume that problems plaguing NT also plague Windows 2000 unless
otherwise notified) and i've found it to be generally more robust (please
note that that
A more effective way to express displeasure (especially if you feel some
form of non-passive censure is warranted) might be to reply with the
following:
"Yes I do have both a comment and interest.
My comment is that your shameless promotion using what appears to be an NAI
e-mail address spurs m
it sounds like you'd be interested in all the candidate routes a given
routing protocol would generate (whether periodically or as a reaction to
external influences).
i'm still new at this, but it seems like the closest you would come
(without getting deeply lost within their branch of the share
agnostic might be too strong a term to lavish upon a company that preaches
"open standards" at prospective customers (such as isl, pim, cgmp, igrp,
eigrp,their layer 2 hdlc & the rest-meaning, anything they developed in
isolation and imposed, or are waiting to impose, upon the rest of the
ip-vulne
Disclosure: i work with equipment manufactured by both nortel & cisco (or
companies they assimilated) and make every effort to be equally unfair to
both.
thanks for the clarification about PIM, i was unaware of those
circumstances. in the original list i forgot hsrp, which-i'm told-falls
under th
i suppose that an underlying assumption of mine was that microsoft's market
is non-competitive AND cisco has a chance of breaking into the carrier
market BECAUSE both companies are leaders in terms of directional
flexibility. do you see it differently?
as for hsrp, even if it is functionally id
one possible suggestion is to leverage a search engine such as
rfc-editor.org's. it allows you to search by topic and the results are
typically returned along with the obsolence hierarchy information
you might want to think about reading the original ospf (version 2: i
believe the start number
to the extent that it counts, i'd have to vote that mastering
implementations of similar technologies by different vendors and
opportunities to explore interoperability rarely hurt one's opportunities
to begin grasping the miracle by which bit patterns emanating from one
digital computing device
thanks for the insight.
unfortunately, i'm in an environment where all kinds of anguish, fear.
uncertainty and doubt (not to mention resistance, fits and threats) were
raised when Y2K bullies "forced" an upgrade to RS 11.03/9 last year, so i'm
pretty far from offering a perspective on bcc.
i'm
an aspect i did not notice to be covered in the response found below is the
following:
it appears to me that multicast technology incorporates control of traffic
distribution into the addressing scheme: all
multicast-rfc-compliant-devices will forward traffic to multiple hosts if
the destination
Cisco employees have confirmed for me that devices connected to span ports
are unable to act as normal hosts by design.
Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@groupstudy.com on 12/29/2000
03:27:52 PM
Please respond to Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTE
My admittedly limited experience is as follows:
on the first day after a cutover to a set of 6500s and 6000s, I needed to
track down some server misconfigurations, so I asked that a server VLAN be
spanned to the port my laptop was using. Upon execution of those commands,
all normal functions of
Thinking about it further, there was probably nothing preventing my machine
from transmitting, but I probably was not connected to the network I was
configured for once the port was spanned.
-- Forwarded by Kevin
Cullimore/FIRNY/NorthAmerica/MCKINSEY on 12/29/2000 09:42 PM
If you're trapped within a microsoft platform, the minimium enhancement you
should consider is the free upgrade from http://www.hilgraeve.com, although
i'm more than willing to allow that other alternatives might in fact be far
superior.
"Gary Joyce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@groupstudy.com on 12/3
A company might intentionally go out of their way for such late 1980's
state of the art engineering in order to acheive greater integration with
operating systems build around products such as LAN manager (I'm told that
much of the archaic stuff in NT is for the sake of backwards compability
with
Within the confines of my (admittedly limited) understanding of the
original author's point, the username/password pairs referred to are the
ones used in processes such as CHAP authentication, and therefore do not
pertain to end-user access to either intermediate or end systems (thereby
somewhat o
I'm not sure that "new" effectively characterizes their enterprise; perhaps
it's more applicable to their invasion of the for-profit
data-communications turf.
http://www.marconi.com/html/about/ourhistory.htm
"Shaw, Winston Mr 5 SIG CMD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@groupstudy.com on
01/05/2001 04:13
It's been my experience that when a M$ ip stack assumes this address and
mask, that it is NOT appearing on their network, and can't even talk to
same-subnet hosts in most cases. As far as benefit is concerned, I believe
that it might allow you to determine if a dhcp attempt occurred or not.
A clearer statement about the level of involvement that SNMP might have
within postings on a (clearly) hypothetical bay/nortel newsgroup is that it
would be a recurring topic, with a fairly high percentage of specific
implementation questions. This has to do with the ineffably sluggish nature
of t
Based on my experience (similar to yours, except that i took all of the
boson BCMSN tests dozens of times) and the postings since august, the boson
tests appear to have something to do with reality, and some semblance of
correlation with test results whereas the colt tests appear to serve
primaril
If you refer to swallows instead, they'll probably be able to recognize the
reference slightly faster.
"Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@groupstudy.com on 01/13/2001 05:15:13
AM
Please respond to "Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
In my vastly limited experience, it only works perfectly when a successfull
outcome would introduce a routing or layer 2 Loop, or a source of hacking
traffic, or allow a badly misconfigured box to interact with every
mission-critical server in the environment. Usually, it merely causes
performance
You wrote:
I am now planning on a quick pit stop to get Nortell NNCSS certification in
routing(Any advice out there?).
If you take the accelar test, know the cli cold. The questions range from
too simple to ambiguously worded (and therefore hard to answer
"correctly"). The tests correlate very s
Reviewing the list submissions for the past couple of months might give you
the impression that this is a case where if you could only read one book on
a topic, Halabi's would be it for BGP, regardless of the vendor
sponsorship. I'm actually looking forward to the Doyle book, especially
since he's
26 matches
Mail list logo
