was
told
by TAC it's still not available. If it is available what code is it on?
Thanks,
-Michael Cohen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
nrf
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MPLS VPN [7:38749
to precisely emulate it with an L2VPN? RFC2547 proponents might try to
counter by touting the fact that their VPN is L2-independent, but that
advantage is largely negated by the extensive interworking L2 capabilities
offered in gear made by, um, another vendor.
Michael Cohen wrote in message
is it on?
Thanks,
-Michael Cohen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
nrf
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MPLS VPN [7:38749]
Yes
flight wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
demanded
by the exam. Complete waste of time but lucky for me it was easy credit...
Cheers,
-Michael Cohen, CCIE #6080
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Steven A. Ridder
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 4:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
Where did you get you're information regarding only one person passing the
C/S CCIE? I registered for the lab back in December and was told there were
already 6 people who had passed...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Steven A Ridder
point into the VPN considering security, network design, etc...
Cheers,
-Michael Cohen CCIE #6080
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
bergenpeak
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: the global tag and ip
Use a time based access list as the dialer-list.
dialer-list 1 protocol ip list 100
!
access-list 100 permit ip any any time-range dial-backup
!
time-range dial-backup
periodic weekdays 08:00 to 17:00
HTH,
-Michael Cohen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
these interesting results or was there actually a specific purpose for it?
Thanks,
-Michael Cohen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Chuck Larrieu
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 11:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BGP default-originate bug
Not all routing protocols are associated with layer 3 of the OSI model...
-Michael
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Hire, Ejay
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 10:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [7:11709]
No. CDP is a Layer two
,
-Michael Cohen CCIE #6080
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Kevin Wigle
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 11:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Administrative Distance [7:9921]
My gut feeling is yes, it should behave exactly like
to the career path I have chosen. I don't regret putting
industry certifications before college at this time (except for those wild
college parties I've heard about!!). However, I am continuing my education
and plan to finish my degree in a couple of years.
HTH,
-Michael Cohen
-Original
but it's not registered to any
Ethernet vendor codes either. Cisco says this is probably from a traffic
generator (like SmartBits) but I don't think that's being run anywhere. Has
anybody seen this MAC address or something like it?
Thanks,
-Michael Cohen
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com
Actually, Cisco bought the ONS 15900 along with Monterey Networks for 500
million in August of 1999. That's what makes this a particularly
interesting move by Cisco since this was an aquisition which places them in
the market of one of the next big core technologies exactly following the
and Nortel (among many others) are very
active in developing intelligent optical switching.
Any other opinions?
-Michael Cohen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
David Chandler
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
IGP since the bandwidth information doesn't cross area boundaries. Each
head end of TE tunnels should know what bandwidth is available through the
entire tunnel path prior to RSVP signaling.
Cheers,
-Michael Cohen
-Original Message-
From: Irwin Lazar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent
mechanisms will improve you're speed
and MPLS will allow for the reduction of routes in the core of the
network...
Regards,
-Michael Cohen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Stephen Skinner
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
I think there might be some confusion as to where RSVP and CR-LDP are being
used. Steve is correct in saying that Cisco is using RSVP and most other
vendors are using CR-LDP for Traffic Engineering. Cisco is also using the
proprietary TDP to distribute tags in their MPLS solution while other
with other areas via the Attached bit.
This can lead to sub-optimal routing due to the absence of specific routes
to destinations however route leaking and other design methods can be used
to overcome this...
Cheers,
-Michael Cohen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
(cost). I respect your opinion that it is worth the cost
however I've never seen a technical reason to support VLAN insecurity.
Cheers,
-Michael
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Michael Cohen
Agreed. The question doesn't relate directly to a 6509 but more towards the
security of VLAN's and the separation of broadcast domains via software.
From there depending on your perspective the focus changes to the specific
flaws and exploits relating to the subject of VLANs (optimistic view) or
Since ISL is Cisco's proprietary protocol it seems that support for new
technologies are supported for ISL before 802.1Q on Cisco devices. For
instance, Cisco's MPLS/Tag-Switching requires CEF on all MPLS enabled
interfaces. CEF switching was supported for ISL since 12.0 however 802.1Q
just
see
a technical reason why you can't have these VLANs connected to the same box
as long as a properly configured firewall logically seperates them.
-Michael Cohen CCIE #6080
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Carroll Kong
Sent: Tuesday, May
)
into level 1 areas.
HTH,
-Michael Cohen CCIE #6080
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
aaa aaa
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IS-IS: Default route for L1 router [7:2485]
The adjancencies are formed, here
PPP multilink would also be required...
Cheers,
-Michael Cohen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Tom
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2 phsical ISDN lines to act as one = 256k [7:2232]
Put both
24 matches
Mail list logo
