The global command is as follows:
ipx sap service-type name network.node socket hop-count
For more information, check out the following link for 11.3. I don't believe the
syntax has changed in further releases.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios113ed/cs/csprtn2/csipx
Keep in mind however that the management port is an Out of Band Ethernet port. Hence,
you need to telnet to the router via it as opposed to connecting your RJ-45 serial
cable :)
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 1/26/2001 at 8:05 AM Curtis Call wrote:
>At 10:42 PM 1/25/01 -0
I've always used the exact match mask of 0.0.0.0 to specify interface addresses to
place in the OSPF process. I find this way to be much simpler for config reading
which is helpful during troubleshooting.
-pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 1/29/2001 at 6:06 AM David Richard w
Why don't you post your configs. At least the relevant pieces of them
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/1/2001 at 5:08 PM Santosh Koshy wrote:
>I am testing BGP in a lab
>
>-- -
>| RA |--| RB|
>-- -
>
>1) Router A has networks 1
A quick point of clarity.
VLAN routing is not a technology. In fact, the two terms are completely unrelated. A
VLAN is simply a broadcast domain that is not specifically bounded by physical
limitations. Routing on the other hand has to do with building forwarding tables and
making forwardin
Redistribute what?
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/1/2001 at 8:02 PM Curtis Call wrote:
>There's something that I'm curious about dealing with OSPF ASBRs. Let's
>say your ASBR is also an ABR that is bordering area 0 and area 1. Is there
>a way that you could specify to only r
So you are talking about a topology where you have an ASBR that also borders Area 0
and is thus also an ABR by definition.
The question is then, "can I control which external prefixes enter the rest of the
ospf domain as type 5 LSA's" I would have to say that you cannot by definition
restrict
Anyone with a contract or s/n can open a TAC case. I believe CCIE's are automatically
escalated a level should they happen to open a case. Further, Silver and Gold
partners need to have a certain percentage of their cases opened by CCIE's to
demonstrate the requisite level of internal escalat
Ethereal, www.ethereal.com, works for me and is free.
It actually also has some of the freshest decodes I've seen (ie RSVP-TE/OSPF-TE etc)
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/8/2001 at 8:56 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>=A0=A0Can someone recommend reasonable price Windows sniffer?
This isn't really a fair question. We'd need to know things like the current load on
the router, other processes/protocols running, memory, link state database size, area
size etc.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/9/2001 at 10:27 AM West, Karl wrote:
>Need suggestion:
>
>Has a
ruction of these major POPs. Hope that helps!
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Peter Van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 1:01 PM
>To: Hinton Bandele-NBH281
>Subject: Re: Networking White Papers (NAP and BGP)
>
>
>What exactly do you
The Olive is a PC class machine that runs JunOS. It is however not sold nor supported
nor at all endorsed for use outside of Juniper.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/14/2001 at 11:10 AM anthony kim wrote:
>--- Mark Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On a related note, in
How is current layer 3 switching any different from routing? I believe your concern
would lie with forwarding performance?
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/14/2001 at 10:43 PM Kenneth wrote:
>You obviously can't do layer 3 SWITCHING with a box loaded with Linux. It
>might do rou
This is actually not the case. A layer two network that contains a logical loop with
get into trouble with all types of traffic flows. For example, consider a simple
network like the one I'll try and draw below.
Node A Node B
||
-Ethernet 1
Per my other post, STP prevents looping traffic in general, not simply broadcasts.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/19/2001 at 6:50 AM Kenneth wrote:
>Jason is right. This will defeat the purpose of Spanning Tree of creating a
>single path to a destination. The primary reaso
Couple comments inserted below
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 2/20/2001 at 11:55 AM Ahmed Aden wrote:
>Scott,
>
>I think the problem is with you putting 'no synchronization' in
>router1. I would also say that if you did a ping to 33.33.33.1 from
>router2 it would work because the
A better question would be "what is the mean or medium rate for persons of such and
such experience with such and such designations working in a primarily technical role
in a specific area" You have to be that specific for answers to have any value
whatsoever.
I would recommend that people hi
I would look simply at MPLS. Whether the packet contents are encapsulated via IPSec
or not is really not relevant. Check out the 2547bis draft and potentially some of
the layer 2 vpn drafts that are available. The ietf is really your source for this
type of information.
Pete
*** R
Ok.. maybe my answer was a little lean
Here are some key drafts (watch the x in some for the latest draft)
all of these are found at www.ietf.org
2547 Draft: draft-rosen-rfc2547bis-0x.txt
BGP Route Refresh draft-ietf-idr-bgp-route-refresh-0x.txt
BGP Extended Comm's draft-r
The CCIE program does little to develop the skill set of a pure IP engineer in a ISP
environment. CCIE has little bearing in my opinion when candidate are interviewed for
senior IP architectural positions. CCIE is really an enterprise discipline.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR **
BX
>> over the WAN. IP Phones are new to me, but I'll be traveling to Ontario,
>> Canada, to play at Nortel, and flying to North Carolina to play in
>Sprint's
>> AVVID lab .. oh yea, I'm going to some Cisco IP Telephony/Call Center
>> training too. :-)
>
Enterprise refers to the customer base that the products/services are marketed to.
Enterprise is generally broken into segments by size, and refers to the networks
operated by the companies that utilize them themselves for the purpose of facilitating
business processes.
There's probably a b
I think one has to assume that there is reachability via some means between the two
routers. Sam indicates at the beginning of the section that only relevant snippets of
configs will be posted in each example and in this case I expect there are missing
items both on F and the intermediary E.
I'm not sure if I follow you here. I believe the question has to do with how the
peering became established in the first place. Simply adding a neighbor statement to
a router in no way enables the router to find a route to that particular neighbor.
Actually, the issue of routing to remote ne
Maximum Transfer Units (MTU) have an significant impact on the efficiency of traffic
flow. MTU's are set on a per link basis and describe the maximum datagram size
permitted on a link. Should a datagram size exceed the particular MTU on a link, the
datagram is either dropped or fragmented dep
What is the desired role for the device? Its hard to compare a pure IP router with an
enterprise L2/L3 box. Not that this is the first time I've heard the question :)
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 3/13/2001 at 12:26 PM Frankie wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Anyone do a comparative an
Juniper supports a feature called CCC (circuit cross connect) which essentially
enables layer two technologies to span across WAN backbones via MPLS. This works with
many layer two encapsulations including ppp, frame, ethernet/802.1q etc. This
technique can provide the type of functionality y
couple comments inserted
Howard>
>> It's misleading to think that all ISP routers need to be "core."
>> Arguably, the highest-bandwidth "core" routers inside an ISP may not
>> need to run full BGP, but have more stringent demands on OSPF, ISIS,
>> and/or MPLS. Think of RFC 2547 "P" routers.
>
dr
I'd recommend you visit www.mplsrc.com
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 3/14/2001 at 12:58 PM Nabil Fares wrote:
>Greetings all,
>
>Need some white papers or an info on MPLS.
>
>Thanks
>
>_
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.gro
It was the intent to prepare a written exam that when passed indicates a strong
readiness for the lab test. Essentially, the difficulty levels between the written
and lab are designed to be comparable, whereas Cisco's written isn't on the same level
as its Lab.
pete
*** REPLY SEPARA
I don't think that anyone at Juniper or ISP's for that matter would consider the CCIE
cert as junior, or in any way lacking in technical difficulty. The issue is one of
applicability. ISP's deal at some depth with IP routing which is about 1/2 at most of
the CCIE program. As such, the cert d
comment inserted
>For some reason, the BGP neighbor setup process won't take default route.
>Therefore, I tried to add static route for the loopback interface and then
>the bgp session finally came up. I would imagine using IGP to carry the
>loopback address should work as well.
>
>Richard
Beyo
With all this Juniper stuff flying around, I remind you all to consider that core
routing represents something like 16% of Cisco's revenue stream and Juniper only make
core routers.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 3/16/2001 at 1:51 PM Raul F. Fernandez-IGLOU wrote:
>Yes, I
After posting I wondered how far my liberal use of the word "core" would get me :) To
be honest, very few terms in any vernacular can stand up to the rigorous hair
splitting that debate inspires. Lexical precision just isn't an important concept to
the marketing folks in this business.
Fortu
The CD is all you need. And they give it to you. You can use all the books if you
like, but I don't recommend it :)
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 3/17/2001 at 1:28 PM Dave Malhotra wrote:
>What are the exact reference materials you are given when you take the
>lab?
>
>-d
you can not do this over a T1 or
>fram relay? Please let me know if this is wrong.
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>--- Peter Van Oene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Juniper supports a feature called CCC (circuit cross
>> connect) which essentially enables layer two
>> tec
If your not routing on the 6500's where are you going to route? I would personally
highly suggest each 4000 link back to the each 6500 and a combination of HSRP and Per
VLAN STP be used to balance the use of the gigabit links. As to which 6500 internet
traffic uses, I suggest that it really d
***
On 3/19/2001 at 8:12 PM Frank cisco wrote:
>I think it is a plausible question , because Cisco is positioning the
>Cat6509 as a optical services router. The new router 7600 is a Cat6509
>with
>OSM (Optical Service module) module
>
>
>>From: "Peter Van
509's the VTP mode was set to transparent and on the 5500 it was set on
>server. I simply changed the mode to transparent on the 5500 and at that
>point I was able to put sc0 in vlan 100. I can see more vlan 1 on the 5500
>trunk now. I think I'm good to go!
>
>Robert
>
the vtp pruning as well.
>What are your thoughts on VTP pruning?
>
>Robert
>
>-----Original Message-
>From: Peter Van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 12:06 PM
>To: Lopez, Robert; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: vlans and trunking
>
&
Keep in mind that a VLAN is just a broadcast domain. With a packet capture tool, you
capture whatever traffic happens to pop out the port your connected to. Connected
directly to a layer 2 switch (bridge) you will see all the broadcast/multicast traffic
in the VLAN.
*** REPLY SEPAR
this rfc pertains to service provider vpn's leveraging mpls/bgp
implementations. Its likely a fairly complex topic for those who are
interested in a general understanding of the "vpn" concept. I will
personally suggest that vpn is one of the more overused and ambiguous terms
floating aroun
Although i haven' t read it (i probably should), I have to say that this is a very
highly referenced text in the internet community. I've seen in on many reading lists
and even more bibliographies.
I will say that Halabi's book is an excellent text. However, I wouldn't overlook
RFC's eithe
Can you clarify what you mean by autonomous systems? The term is somewhat ambiguous
in this context.
Thanks,
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/23/2000 at 9:12 AM ALI SHEERAZ wrote:
>hi friends
>
>i want to redistribute OSPF with EIGRP and the reditribution is across
Title: Packeteer
The Packeteer unit would have the ability to apply some quality of service
to your outbound traffic (via TCP window manipulation with application layer
awareness).
However, doing so would require them to setup a policy based on the
application requirements at your site. I wo
It is my belief that the P bit is unmodifiable. Type 7's are advertised as 5's to the
OSPF domain in almost if not all manufacturers equipment. Although some texts allude
to the fact that you can control this behavior with a nob, I've never seen it.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR *
SEPARATOR ***
On 11/25/2000 at 7:57 AM Shaw, Winston Mr. wrote:
>Just a suggestion. Have you tried "tagging" the routes coming into the ASBR
>and then denying them on the ABR with a route map ?
>
>Winston.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Peter Van Oene [
Keep in mind that Weight is Cisco proprietary. Most routers begin with local pref as
the first tie break.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/27/2000 at 8:18 AM Frank Wells wrote:
>This is the BGP attribute decision process:
>
>1 BGP Path Selection starts; if the next hop is inacce
As per david's msg, it would seem that I may be entirely mistaken! (like thats a first
:)
headed back to study :)
pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/29/2000 at 8:58 AM Peter Van Oene wrote:
>One or two comments inset.
>
>Chuck's Text
>>>I would
One or two comments inset.
Chuck's Text
>>I would venture a guess that the BDR
>>would be promoted because even though there is an alternative route to the
>>DR loopback, hellos go only to adjacent routers, and the DR is no longer
>>adjacent.
>
>Well, I proved my point. Under this scenario, when
Getting traffic off the net in a somewhat balanced fashion is the easy part. Finding
a way to have equal amounts of it traverse multiple AS's and end up at two differing
entry points into the AS is the stuff of GODS :)
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 12/4/2000 at 4:07 PM
I would concur that the written is not a challenging test. If you've managed to get
through the NP cert, you should be able to pass with little (if any) additional prep
work. I do recall more IBM technology stuff on the written than in the NP track so
checking into that would help.
I too w
Halabi's book is a good reference. I would also pay a lot of attention to the
following
*RFC 1771 BGP v4
*RFC 1997 BGP Communities
*RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection
*RFC 1965 BGP AS Confederations
*RFC 1998 BGP Communities for Multihoming
I would also read Cisco's si
Halabi's book is a good reference. I would also pay a lot of attention to the
following
*RFC 1771 BGP v4
*RFC 1997 BGP Communities
*RFC 2796 BGP Route Reflection
*RFC 1965 BGP AS Confederations
*RFC 1998 BGP Communities for Multihoming
I would also read Cisco's si
ok.. i just woke up and may be groggy, but what is a layer 2 cable?
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 12/9/2000 at 5:10 PM Gareth Hinton wrote:
>Layer 2 Cat 5 cables for sale.
>All MAC addresses configured identical (to make addressing system easy).
>Anyone interested?
>
>In defence
Due to the fact that Cisco Certs are very technology centric as well as the massive
install base of Cisco based solutions, I would expect that the certs will retain their
value for a good period of time. However, it is always wise to keep abreast of more
than one implementation of technology i
Hi Erwin,
I'm not sure if your looking for the right company. Juniper Networks manufacture high
end, service provider oriented routers. I'm not positive by your email that this is
what you desire. Potentially the 6000 OSR I believe from Cisco is about the only
device from the Enterprise cre
Hi Dan,
I thought I would throw my two cents in.
There are a few key reasons why one requires an interior routing protocol (or at worst
case a routing strategy should one use statics) within an AS. First and foremost, you
must consider what iBGP does within the AS. Essentially, it allows i
I would clarify that the rule here is that you each BGP speaking router needs to have
a route to the Next Hop routers advertised into the AS.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 12/21/2000 at 9:43 PM Katson PN Yeung wrote:
>In case you have 2 routers connect back-to-back with iBGP, y
As Howard might say "what problem are you trying to solve?"
If you are looking at this for certification purposes, I would say glide lightly over
areas of a granular nature such as the performance of an SPF algorithm. For these
purposes, Jeff or Radia's coverage (more so Jeff's in the case of
I would add to that RFC 2547 and the more recent modification 2547bis.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 12/26/2000 at 11:24 AM Talib wrote:
>Below are two cisco documents.
>
>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/so/neso/vvda/ipatm/index.shtml
>
>http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/d
Using the traditional, static means, your router receives a gateway of last resort
that is fixed to a particular next hop router (or multiple in the event that you
configure multiple) However, if the router has a number of outbound connections, you
may not be maximizing your resiliency in this
I have to slightly disagree. CCIE is a test, pure and simple. It actually doesn't
relate much at all to real world experience. When would you rush like a maniac to
build a superfluously complex network in 12 hours with only limited guidelines and
then have it maliciously tampered with while
Using addressed outside of the 1918 space that are properly registered with a registry
can have some benefit to those organization that possess a sufficient quantity of them
to suit their needs. The question I would ask would be; "what do you gain by using
the 1918 space when you have enough u
I'm just curious why people seem to disregard the concept of using NAT and registered
addresses together? Just because you have unique addressing doesn't mean you have to
announce the prefixes to the Internet. I would highly suggest you use registered
space in the same way that you would use
Using addressed outside of the 1918 space that are properly registered with a registry
can have some benefit to those organization that possess a sufficient quantity of them
to suit their needs. The question I would ask would be; "what do you gain by using
the 1918 space when you have enough u
Here is what I think about the wording below. They key thing to remember is that a
withdrawn message does not need to carry as much information about a routes attributes
as does an advertisement message. In both cases, a route describes a destination and
a BGP Next_Hop address along with oth
Before we get all feature crazed here, let me make a point in the defence of
simplicity. Given the fact that technical and in some cases corporate ownership of
enterprise networks is often transient, it is always wise to implement systems in
simplistic ways. Naturally there has to be some bal
This contradicts my experience at the lab. If they explicitly tell you to not use
inverse arp, you will be penalized. However, if they do not specify how a config
should be built, its not an illegal configuration.
My preference is always
1. Sub Interfaces
2. Physical Interface/Inverse Arp
3.
An EIGRP router interface has detected another EIGRP router interface on the same
multi-access segment that it connects to, however they are running different subnets
which means that they will not form a neighbor relationship. I see this a lot when
people try to use secondaries. I would make
OSPF does not make use of an "autonomous system number". Process id is only
significant within the router itself.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 1/16/2001 at 1:36 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Does the OSPF process id have anything to do with its autonomous system
>number? In the
Just for clarity, VLAN's are a layer 2 concept and IP is of course a layer 3 (please
do not start with the "but what layer is arp again" :)
Despite subnets and VLAN's generally happening on a 1:1 basis in a lot of theoretical
and practical discussions, the two concepts are totally unrelated a
====
>
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Peter Van Oene
>Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:26 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: why is routing needed
address is used you have a
>layer 3 VLAN and a router is needed.
>Layer 2 VLANs mostly used for filtering (never done, I supose is a hard work to
>mantain)
>
>
>Peter Van Oene wrote:
>
>> Just for clarity, VLAN's are a layer 2 concept and IP is of course a layer
ins?
>
>>>> "Peter Van Oene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/18/01 09:07AM >>>
>To me, there is no concept of a layer three VLAN. If you chose to route IP, you need
>a router, whether you have dynamic or statically configured broadcast scopes is fully
&g
NetBIOS can be transported over three main protocols, IP, IPX or at layer 2 over LLC
(type 2 I believe). Netbeui is simply the name for Netbios over LLC. The lack of a
layer 3 transport lends to all the criticism of its ability to scale, and also to its
easy of use since it simply floods broa
This is a book that seems to me to be dedicated to programmers looking to create OSPF
code in C. I don't think I'm violating the NDA when I say that all the OSPF I used in
the lab was Cisco's and I wasn't asked to make my own :)
However, that being said, a truly deep understanding of the proto
In keeping with Howard's previous comment, let's try and sponsor some clarity in the
technical world and ban the word switch. In this context, we are talking about
control vs forwarding. Packets can be routed in the sense of being sent to their
respective IP next hop in hardware vs in a tradi
When BGP routers learn routes via BGP, they learn two key pieces of information; A
destination prefix, and a next hop address. Within an AS, BGP routers communicate
with IBGP. Within the AS however, the next hop address for each prefix is by default
not modified. That means that all IBGP rou
Wow..Two questions. What is doing your routing and What program is doing the file
transfer?
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/3/2000 at 3:05 PM jeongwoo park wrote:
>Hi all
>My file server is on 140.222.20.1/24
>Clients are on these four subnets.
>140.222.150.0/24
>140.222.
>understand why it will solve the problem
>
>appreciate if you can elaborate
>
>thanks
>
>suaveguru
>--- Peter Van Oene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When BGP routers learn routes via BGP, they learn
>> two key pieces of information; A destination prefix,
&g
I think it may be somewhat premature to assume that the performance issue stems from a
lack of bandwidth to the server. I think we still need to see the topology logically
and get a feel for what devices are doing what. Who's to say this isn't 600 people on
shared 10 with a nt box doing some
Maybe Cisco is pissed because Jeff works for Juniper.
In any event, although I haven't looked heavily into the design track, I would not
overlook Jeff's book. It is still IMO the best IGP book on the market.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/7/2000 at 8:09 AM Bruce Will
Outside of anything more "best practice design" specific which others are and I'm sure
will cover, I would look at your 100 meg downlinks (connections from edge switches to
aggregation switches back to 5500 in increasing order of importance) Specifically,
check to ensure that your duplexes on
Actually EIGRP routes IP/IPX and AT. Or at least you can turn on
EIGRP for each protocol using 3 different types of EIGRP. Further
Multiprotocol BGP can route protocols outside of the IP domain as well though
standard BGPv4 is purely an IP protocol. Even further, IS-IS will route
both CLN
the bandwidth statement only effects metric calculation (for routing protocols) and
has nothing to do with actual interface speeds.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/8/2000 at 5:45 PM Raul F. Fernandez wrote:
>Well is this BW statement based on the bandwith statement entere
It would be helpful if you posted some of your config. Particularily
the bgp portion.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR
***On 11/10/2000 at 1:30 AM Kevin Welch wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to understand some route
redistribution, here is the senario:
I have two routers,
In case no one else has, I removed this guy from the list.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/9/2000 at 11:50 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This is awesome!
>
>Rajeev KS here! I just had to tell you
>about SendMoreInfo.com! You get paid to read email!
>They send you information abou
Comments inserted below.
>1) What is the default time period that the BDR waits when listening to
>LSA's from the DR before it decides that the DR is down and promotes itself
>to DR. All the literature we could find simply said that the BDR waits for
>the specified time period but never said wha
I don't see the bureaucracy in the response. I meant simply to make the point that
any certification merely opens doors to interview processes. Remuneration is so
varied is not worth discussion. I meant not to flame in any regard.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/14/2000 at 9:
What about looking at the arp cache "sh ip arp" or "sh cam dynamic"
This will list the port, mac, ip relationships on a switch.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/14/2000 at 11:51 AM Sites, Bob wrote:
>I guess I need to clarify this a little. Yes, I'm talking about Cisco
>sw
In defence of my earlier position that "d" is in fact the other correct answer.
"Priscilla's Point:
>Besides, as I look more closely at the answer, I see that it says,
>"excessive link-state entries in the link-state table." What's a link-state
>table? I think the test writer put a few good-so
Route maps are also heavily used in BGP to support things like as-path filtering and
communities.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/15/2000 at 11:29 AM Sophie wrote:
>distribute-list is used to exchange the routing information between two
>different routing protocols. While
I believe you made the point, but can you confirm that your routing clns with your
IS-IS config? And if so, are you looking to block the clnp routes from the other
routers? or all Interface(s) on each router ? Can you clarify? There also seems to
be some dual isis going on (router A?B?) Than
Couple comments/questions inserted
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/15/2000 at 2:14 AM Rodgers Moore wrote:
>ebgp multihop has nothing to do with load balancing traffic to and from the
>Internet, but it has everything to do with load balancing the the bgp
>connection and update it
IS-IS is used by a large percentage of 1st tier internet backbone providers. From
what I understand, it was chosen not for technical superiority over OSPF, but becuase
cisco's IS-IS code was more stable at the time. At present, IS-IS maintains a couple
advantages over OSPF in the ISP world.
I would be one to suggest that OSPF scales far better than EIGRP. From what I
understand, the dual algorithm and large networks do not get along well. I have very
little experience with large scale EIGRP however.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 11/16/2000 at 3:47 PM Rik Gu
ISP's use IGP's (be they OSPF or IS-IS) for internal reachability (IBGP peering is
generally done on loopbacks and these networks need to be advertised) and for next hop
resolution. Hence, all the perimeter BGP next hops will be advertised into the IGP so
that all IBGP speakers can properly po
There are over 15 different labs from what I understand. Distributions vary per each
one. As far as gear goes, call the proctor or administrator at the facility and ask.
That information is not confidential. There is no mark distribution to be found. I'd
spend more time studying what you l
Off topic, but from a technical precision perspective, I have a feeling that the
correct term is "damping" not "dampening." RFC 2439, the damping rfc, refers to the
process exclusively as damping. It would seem that Cisco in both description and
command syntax, uses the term dampening, leadi
1 - 100 of 480 matches
Mail list logo
