t;
>Regional variations, depending upon the education of those who wrote the
>RFC, or flooded the term through the engineering world?
>
>Did we ever determine if the term "split horizon" truly did have a nautical
>influence?
>
>Chuck
>
>-Original Message---
IS-IS is a routing (routeing really) protocol that can provide routing services for
both CLNP (the network protocol in CLNS's network service) as well as for IP. Hence,
although you may not be required to setup and route CLNP, it may be that you have to
setup IS-IS to route IP (which involves
Local preference is only significant with your AS. Thus, if traffic destined for this
customer hit your AS, you would use local preference as the first piece of criteria
(outside of weight in cisco I believe) to determine which of your available next hops
into that customer you would post in y
Not that its at all helpful in this situation, but ip classless, much like bgp
synchronization, fall into the category of commands that simply defy understanding
when presented with test criteria. One must keep in mind that these are
implementations of code that sometimes are not 100% reflecti
Synch is an issue that gets way too much attention in my opinion. It's not used at
all. It's a legacy feature that is meaningless in todays' networks.
What John describes below, the fact that IBGP routers will no post routes unless they
have reachability to the Next_Hop is not a synchroniza
>Thanks for pointing this out, Peter. Someone on the list recently
>pointed out that BGP synchronization and ip classless seem to be in the
>class of misunderstanding. Just when you think you really understand how
>it operates, you realize you have it wrong. I think I have it now!
You have to think about this from the perspective of the bgp update itself. The
update is going "out" to the neighbor and thus out makes sense in this context.
Should you want to filter updates from the neighbor, in would be the case.
The interesting/confusing thing is that you do outbound fi
that the distribute list should say IN in this case.
>
>- Original Message -----
>From: Peter Van Oene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 5:35 AM
>Subject: Re: bgp filtering
>
>
>> You have to think about this f
Can I ask whats wrong with Prepending?
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 4/9/2001 at 3:45 PM Khalid Jiwani wrote:
>Hi:
>
>In a multihomed scenario, is there any alternative of
>prepanding, to force internet community to prefer one
>service provide on another ?
>
>What if the client
In defence of Sean Young (could it be the real one! :) Juniper has taken a
different approach with it's written exam. Many people will agree that
there is a certain disparity in difficulty between the CCIE entrance exam
and it's lab which is likely by design. Juniper has endevoured to create a
w
Keep in mind that all routers within any type of ospf area must maintain
identical link state databases. Hence, you will see all intra area routes
and a default route toward intra-area and beyond.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 4/18/2001 at 1:47 PM Coleman, Jason wrote:
>Co
sorry all, more typo's on my behalf. the default route points to the inter
area and beyond.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 4/18/2001 at 2:30 PM Peter Van Oene wrote:
>Keep in mind that all routers within any type of ospf area must maintain
>identical link state databa
Keeping in mind that this is a Cisco Certification list and we should really
not clutter it up with Juniper talk, I'll quickly recommend that you check
out the following link;
http://www.juniper.net/training/certification/resources.html
Our manuals are part numbered, order able items which const
The same route with a lower admin distance will cause this to happen. For
example, a connected route or a static etc.
Peter
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 4/22/2001 at 12:10 PM mak wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Would someone can tell me is what situation the route (Type 5) can be
>seen i
In that case, I would suggest you only select the correct ones.
pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 4/26/2001 at 1:34 PM Parrish, Ben wrote:
>I have been told by several guys here that have taken the exam in the
>last 3
>months, that the exam does not tell you the number of corre
I suggest you call the administrator for the facility that you intend to
write and ask. They tend to be very helpful in matters such as this. I
would definitely study 12 builds though.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 4/27/2001 at 1:55 AM Jason wrote:
>What version of IOS is
Just think of VLANs as normal broadcast domains. One routes between
broadcast domains. Your config does not create an overlap between the
VLANs, but rather between the IP subnets. To properly route between
broadcast domains, you must have unique IP subnets that do not overlap.
Pete
*
Ok, I'll try to clear up some odd thoughts there.
RR's simply allow the mesh to scale more gracefully, they do not modify path
information (ie the Next_hop attribute) anywhere unless explicitly told to
do so.
Hence,
In your example, RRClient which must be an ASBR (ie ebgp peering to outside
AS
Problem here. RRclient1 is originating the route which means it must be
EBGP connected to another AS. Hence, it must do the rewrite. The RR server
never rewrites anything unless told to do so. Further, Cisco does not
support IBGP next hop re-writes as far as I know. I have seen and used this
you might want to post in small caps. claiming to be an internet shop and
posting in all caps isn't going to win you any friends.
pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 5/3/2001 at 8:30 AM Larry Burke wrote:
>HOW DO I POST A JOB,
>TELL ME MORE, ABOUT THE MESSAGE BOARDS
>I WOULD LIK
Interface sc0 is not all that relevant here as far as I recall. You need to
simply set the interfaces you connect to on each router to a similar trunk
mode (ISL vs dot1q etc) and things should happen naturally. Your sc0
interface is simply the management interface on the 5500 which should be
lef
but your management VLAN doesn't have to be VLAN 1. For
>example, I implemented a DMZ for a client where we used VLAN 999 for the
>management "rail".
>
>Darren
>
>At 12:03 PM 05/03/2001 -0400, Peter Van Oene wrote:
>>Interface sc0 is not all that relevant here
Keep in mind that Cisco has a work force of 30k+ (peak was in the 40's I
believe) Juniper has 1200 or so.Our hiring 905 people would be a little
excessive :)
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 5/8/2001 at 5:44 PM Bradley J. Wilson wrote:
>Carroll Kong wrote:
>
>>...but also
I don't believe this is accurate. Certainly Cisco employees are expected to
reach the same score as everyone else on the lab and pre qualification for
CCIE. 10 or 15% would mean that you'd need 90-95% to pass the lab which
would make it pretty tough. I know that instructors (CCSI's) have to pas
You're pretty much there. To clarify, transit AS's use only fully meshed
IBGP (assuming scalability techniques like Route Reflection and
Confederations also in use) and usually peer internally via loopback
addresses for stability and as you correctly point out, use the IGP to
distribute reachabil
OSPF has more "enterprise" oriented features including more options for
supporting varied network mediums (NBMA comes to mind) and definitely a
marked advantage in published materials. Further, without recent
modifications, the ability to scope the flow of LSA's and maintain some
degree of routin
They may be assuming that you will advertise a small block of the /8 space
(say a /24 or /23 etc) which likely be filtered by various providers. Small
advertisements out of the class C space would not suffer similarily.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 5/18/2001 at 9:38 AM Riz
JunOS is only intended for use with Juniper routers. The olive was a
testing device that has long since been retired and is not supported in any
sense by Juniper.
Peter
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 5/18/2001 at 4:55 AM Valeri Marinski wrote:
>Hi Group!
>People are talking pret
A small correction. Traffic engineering databases are populated via new
TLV's in IS-IS (see Draft-ietf-isis-traffic-0x.txt). Wide metric support is
not required.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 5/25/2001 at 12:06 PM Michael Cohen wrote:
>Quite right. RSVP-TE is only for path crea
ael Cohen
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Peter Van Oene
>Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 1:02 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Isn't MPLS basically just ATM PNNI, but for layer 3?
>[7:6015]
>
>
&
Something about saying cisco is "new" to L3 bothers me :) Switching in
hardware based on IP headers maybe, but layer 3? I think they've proven
themselves there.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 5/28/2001 at 1:14 PM John Hardman wrote:
>Hi
>
>It means that the 4003 and 4006
Couple thoughts on this. Cisco's OSPF should prefer intra area routes over
inter unless the administrative distances are modified. By default, as many
have mentioned, they are all set to 110. However, internally, I believe
path cost is the 2nd tie break, with intra beating inter as the first. I
As Alan correctly points out, path cost is irrelevant in this case as intra
area routers will be preferred over inter.
>> We
>> tend to think that a small network could not be better served by
>> applying the same principles that we might use for a larger
>> environment. Why is that? Instead
There was recently a good thread on NANOG discussing this very thing. I'd
suggest you search the archives at www.nanog.org.
Peter
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 5/30/2001 at 9:56 AM Nabil Fares wrote:
>Greetings all,
>
>Would like to know if any of you guys using jumbo frames on
As you are likely aware, running TE over area borders isn't an available
option these days due to the loss of traffic engineering info at those
borders. Hence, migrating to a single area might enhance your ability to
engineer traffic in your network. I would just keep an eye on the
utilization o
Search the archives for 2-3 iterations of the discussion culminating with
Chuck doing some heavy lab work.
Peter
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 6/4/2001 at 5:15 PM Doug Lockwood wrote:
>Tom;
>
>I think a discussion on this will be interesting.
>My perseption is that a classful/cl
The only thing unique about a private ASN is that your upstream providers or
"peers" should you have them will not communicate with you. However, within
your own routing domain, you are free to treat the ASN just like a public
one. With respect to your questions, yes, you can run EBGP to RR clie
Two ospf processes might be cleaner. So long as the broadcast domains are
isolated, running two processes would keep things nicely separated. Using
separate authentication kets as suggested, one per ospf process would also
protect against a misconfiguration merging the two. However, we should
l
There are that many people taking the lab. I'm sure Cisco is doing whatever
they can to ease this backload.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 6/13/2001 at 10:54 AM Andrew Shappell wrote:
>Greetings,
> I just scheduled my CCIE R&S Lab and found it rather interesting that the
>fi
If you served all your addresses from the same scope, you would have serious
issues routing issues. Best practises dictate that you assign a scope per
VLAN.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 6/15/2001 at 5:40 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>In a Cat6509, we have created
Here's my quick take on these services. It's been awhile since I thought
about LANE :)
Keep in mind that ATM is NBMA, ie has no concept of broadcast. LANE
basically attempts to make a rich and capable ATM backbone look like a dull
and boring broadcast LAN. Pretty much due to the fact that ATM n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] comes to mind.
they have many options depending on the nature of use.
pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 6/28/2001 at 3:20 PM Justin Lofton wrote:
>How much is the ISS software? Does anyone know?
>
>Thanks Everyone!
>
>Justin Lofton
>Account Executive/CCNA
>T
The standard procedure when receiving a valid LSA is to retransmit that LSA
out a set of interfaces. However, section 13.3 of RFC 2328 describes a list
of numerous caveats. One of those is that should you receive an LSA that in
all probability was successfully received by other routers out a par
~
> Ole Drews Jensen
> Systems Network Manager
> CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I
> RWR Enterprises, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>~~~
> http://www.OleDrews.com/CCNP
>~~~~~~~
> NEED A JOB ???
> http://www.oledrews.com/job
>~~~
A closer look at that output will show that munsters OSPF priority is set to
0, thereby making it ineligible for election. Otherwise, you would find
that it would fill a BDR role as you expected - assuming munster would be
set to the default priority of 1, equal to the other router, leaving RID a
What are the current advantages for running ISL over 802.1q? I would
expect its proprietary nature to be enough to warrant choosing against it.
Pete
At 03:47 PM 1/30/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Is ISL still widely used? Are there still many shops out there using it? (I
>assume Cisco only outfits)
No free TAC. However your cases are marked CCIE and usually handled by
something other than 1st level support
At 11:36 AM 1/31/2002 -0500, Joe Carr wrote:
>Does anyone know if a CCIE gets free TAC support? OR what other benefits
does
>a CCIE receive
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy
how about doing what, for whom, where, and not to mention, most importantly
who?
or is the general consensus that the value an employee delivers to an
employer is directly proportional to the highest level of vendor specific
certification achieved?
At 01:26 PM 1/31/2002 -0500, Joe Carr wrote
Wouldn't surprise me at all that this is a bug. What IOS are you using?
Have you checked out the bug navigator? I just had a quick pass through,
but seeing as instead of actually searching for my keywords, the tool
ignores them and provides 500-1500 additional bugs to be "helpful", I was
una
Comments inline
At 05:31 PM 2/2/2002 -0500, Darrell Newcomb wrote:
>My subscription to the lab mailing list hasn't gone through yet so I
>figured I should post this question here. We know that in preparation
>most folks use various products to emulate a Frame Relay switch. Cisco
>also details t
Hello intervals are link specific. I'm not sure why varying hello timers
on different links would be relevant.
At 06:23 PM 2/4/2002 -0500, Walter Rogowski wrote:
>If you debug ospf adjacencies you might see complaints re mismatched
>hello intervals.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL
cisco by default prefers ebgp over ibgp. it should not, by default, enjoy
the ibgp routes learned from the peer over the ebgp learned routes.
At 05:37 PM 2/5/2002 -0500, Przemyslaw Karwasiecki wrote:
>Correct me if I am wrong but this:
>
> > if an iBGP peer learns that another iBGP peer alrea
ned route to choose
>from...
>
>
>- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter van Oene"
>To: "Przemyslaw Karwasiecki" ; "W. Alan Robertson"
>
>Cc: "Groupstudy - CCIELAB" ; "Groupstudy -
>Cisco Certification"
>Sent:
selects route learned
>from its iBGP peer over route learned via eBGP,
>and this route is eventualy inserted to routing table
>with administrative distance of 200
>
>
>Correct me if I am ovrlooking something,
>and thank you for excelent idea for testing.
>
>
>Przemek
>
This really depends on whether or not they are pitching a Layer 2 VPN
service or a Layer 3 VPN service. With the former, there shouldn't be much
of any reconfig at your end as the transport mechanism with the SP will
remain transparent to you. With the latter, you'd would transition much of
I would suggest that the renewed focus on improving this technology stems
from the widespread and sometimes confusing opinion that large scale layer
2 networks make sense. Many vendors are rapidly pushing ethernet metro
networks that leverage STP for resiliency. Those customers who have
impl
One thing to remember is that OSPF costs are calculated
unidirectionally. For example, A's cost to C could be very different from
C's cost to A. In general, IP traffic has to be engineered in both
directions and it for some networks asymmetry in flow might make sense. I
can't think of a rea
You may have heard that about a default, but not a normal static. There
should be no issues with using static routes.
At 02:37 PM 3/9/2002 -0500, Ouellette, Tim wrote:
>Thought bgp had a gotcha where you couldn't start a neighbor relationship
>based on a static route.
>
>I'm fairly confident th
comments inline
At 02:32 AM 3/12/2002 -0500, Hunt Lee wrote:
>To ALL,
>
>I have 2 OSPF questions, it would be greatly appreciated if someone can shed
>some light on this.
>
>1) Does an OSPF Stub Area blocks Type 5 LSAs & Type 4 LSAs, or do they just
>block Type 5 LSAs?
Stub restricts both. Cons
Most MPLS is implemented with shim headers (IE not filling VPI/VCI)
space. You should be able to learn all you want about mpls without ATM.
Pete
At 12:59 AM 3/17/2002 -0500, Tom Scott wrote:
>Reinhold,
>
>What did you use for the lab? I'd like to practice with MPLS but it
>appears that I'd ne
ISP's typically run one of IS-IS, or OSPF as their IGP's and manage only
link and loopback address space within it. IBGP is always fully meshed,
although most use tools like Route Reflection and Confederations to avoid
the n*(n-1)/2 scaling issues IBGP can present. Synchronization is an
ant
Really should read my own posts before I send them sometimes. I meant to
say one of either maximize convergence speed, or minimize convergence time,
but really said neither :)
At 08:34 PM 3/17/2002 -0500, Peter van Oene wrote:
>ISP's typically run one of IS-IS, or OSPF as their I
ess memory, less CPU etc. If this is correct, why
>don't ISPs run that as their interior routing protocol?
>
>Jeffrey Reed
>Classic Networking, Inc.
>
>-----Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter
>van Oene
>Sent: Sund
,
>why
> > don't ISPs run that as their interior routing protocol?
> >
> > Jeffrey Reed
> > Classic Networking, Inc.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Peter
> > van O
I think you really need to mention that you are working on describing
RFC2547bis which happens to use MPLS as a forwarding mechanism. The
original question asked why BGP was required for MPLS for which the correct
answer is that it isn't.
At 11:05 AM 3/21/2002 -0500, Sexton, Ken wrote:
>MP-iB
ss VRF information up to the PE.
>
>Ken Sexton
>Data Network Engineering
>ICG Communications
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Peter van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:39 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTE
I fully agree with you. My personal opinion is that one validates one's
credibility in an email north of the name, not south.
pete
At 12:44 PM 3/25/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > The reason I ask is due to the number of people on this list
> > that show CCNA, CCNP in their title.
>
>I list them al
Hi Hunt,
A little cut and past here. For those reading along, it page 150 of version
1.
Router A (SJ) has only 1 physical connection which is to router B with an
IGP next hop of 3.3.3.3. In this example, Halabi is describing the
relationship between IGP and BGP next Hops. 2.2.2.0/24 is like
vice versa
>3. either of the above
>4. or none of the above?
>
>Thanks for your help :)
>Tarek
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Peter van Oene
>Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 7:31 PM
>To: Tarek
in the picture is meant to indicate the logical IBGP connection, not a
physical link.
Pete
At 08:27 PM 3/27/2002 -0500, Peter van Oene wrote:
>Hi Hunt,
>
>A little cut and past here. For those reading along, it page 150 of version
>1.
>
>Router A (SJ) has only 1 physical connec
what's funny?
At 10:49 AM 4/1/2002 -0500, James Haynes wrote:
>That's funny.
>
>--
>James Haynes
>Network Architect
>Cendant IT
>A+,MCSE,CCNA,CCDA,CCNP,CCDP,
>CQS-SNA/IPSS
>
>""David Wolsefer"" wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Galina Pildush is publishing an MPL
HI Jenny,
Is it safe to say that your problem is that when your non backbone area
becomes partitioned, you lose reachability to one side of the
partition? When you use large summarizes to describe entire areas and have
multiple entry points into those areas themselves, this is a normal
occur
ely)
>
>But I don't think she's looking for a redesign. She's looking for a quick
>fix for now. What did you guys think of the idea of adding another direct
>connection between the two switches and putting it in area 2.1.0.0?
>
>Priscilla
>
>
> >C
Please pardon the snipping (and top posting for that matter) Posted some
notes inline.
>Peter, when you say that the solution could involve "less specific
> >summaries" - do you really mean more specific summaries? Summarising less
> >drastically (e.g. summarising each site separately) isn't
One quick point below. Trimmed rest.
Question from Jenny
> >One thing I'm not clear on, though, is why the problem (reportedly)
> >happened before we upgraded to IOS 12.1 - so before a route to null0 was
> >used for the summarised networks (we didn't add one manually). Any
>ideas?
> > I can
Short answer. If you want all the routers in your AS to have full
knowledge of prefixes, buy some memory and extend your BGP cloud to include
them. Otherwise, follow a dynamic default and live with suboptimal
routing. Adding the third router as you suggest is a helpful
option. However, in
.0 R2
R2
ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 null0
Adding the cable is also helpful, but costs money and requires you to touch
a bunch of routers.
At 09:04 AM 4/5/2002 -0500, Peter van Oene wrote:
>Adding a point to point link between ABR's would enhance the resiliency
>between the two and
ailer; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:43:38 -0500
>Received: from pvanoene-lt1.usermail.com (natsvc.juniper.net
[207.17.136.130])
> by usermail.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g35EijQ20325
> for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:44:46 -0500
>Message-Id:
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: Q
Making the area stub will explicitly deny the use of type 4/5 in the area,
hence, this should not work. Summarization at the ABR would make the most
sense to me. Odd that it doesn't seem to work.
pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 7/12/2001 at 6:40 PM John Neiberger wrote:
>Co
I wouldn't doubt that the US/global tech slowdown isn't helping to slow the
growth either :)
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 7/15/2001 at 5:32 PM Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>The folks over on NANOG have had in interesting thread on sizing BGP
>routers. All you folks thinking about dual h
summarize external routes originated on that
>local router - hence cannot use to summarize for non-local type-5s
>
>I cannot believe that it is not possible to do something as simple as this
>without resorting to multiple OSPF instances and redistributing between
>them!!
>
>cheer
as a customer could drop their uplink to that ASBR, without
>the
>summarizing ASBR dropping the aggregate which would kinda kill their
>traffic
>- good ol' CEF keeps a-load-balancing half the traffic to the router
>without
>a route... ;-)
>
>hence, this is why I want fu
Are you missing the point that the lab with still be very tough? The only
issue is meeting the customer demand for rack time for testing. Cisco
cannot do this in a two day format and much of the two day stuff was
overhead. I personally think one day will be tougher.
Pete
*** REPLY SE
An Interior Gateway Protocol, IGP, provides routing within an Autonomous
System. Interior Border Gateway Protocol, IBGP, enabled routing between
Autonomous systems by allowing exterior routing information to be shared
among peers within the same autonomous system. Also, IGP is a generic term
for
I beg to differ slightly on the concept of VLANS. A VLAN, as I'm sure you
know, is a broadcast domain and makes no assumption of nor has any
dependance upon layer three protocols. However, the difference in answers
between how to extend a protocol independent broadcast domain vs an IP
broadcast
are you talking about control traffic or data traffic?
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 7/24/2001 at 2:19 PM SH Wesson wrote:
>Does anyone have a sample config of their ACL on their Internet router
>that
>allows certain traffic to go out and certain ones to come in. I'd like a
>sa
chart of most popular protocols in use on end stations last I checked :)
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 7/24/2001 at 5:47 PM Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>At 01:03 PM 7/24/01, Peter Van Oene wrote:
>>I beg to differ slightly on the concept of VLANS. A VLAN, as I
Ok, one more round of nit picky comments and I'll quit :)
> >
>> > Do I need a router between my VLANs?
>
>If you want the VLANs to communicate with each other. Are these trick
>questions? ;-) I realize there are cases where you don't want them to
>communicate. I guess that is what you are gett
I've heard similar in the past. However, keep in mind that very few
enterprise networks will ever generate traffic at that level. I've never
seen any network even turn on the utilization lights on the C6k or C5k for
that matter. Too often people weight sheer throughput higher than other
enterpr
Good points. I should certainly clarify that I don't advocate bridging
between VLANs unless it makes sense to do so which is usually a corner
case. I also fully support properly scoping broadcast domains and using a
one vlan to one subnet methodology for cleanliness. I love simple
networks. I
Incline comment
>>And the question often is, "what problem are you trying to solve by
>>routing between VLANs?" There certainly are reasons, in a campus
>>environment, to bridge between VLANs with a L2 switch, such as the
>>VLAN users in one or more buildings and the servers for that VLAN in
>>a
There was actually some recent debate on this issue within the ISIS wg in
the IETF from some notable folks including Tony Li from Procket (ex
Juniper/Cisco). In reality, there isn't a standard IP MTU in use which can
create some problems. Some of the key issues include the use of private
address
To my knowledge, there are no proponents of sub 1518 byte IP MTU's to be
used as defaults on internet routers. I would tend to think that at least
4470 would make sense. Per my previous post in this thread, I am of the
opinion that a consensus hasn't been reached at this point on this issue.
Fo
clear ip ospf database?
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 8/3/2001 at 10:13 AM Nabil Fares wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>Is there a way to flush the OSPF database without rebooting he router?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Nabil
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14797&t=147
Since Howard is in London, allow me to ask "What problem are you trying to
solve?"
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 8/3/2001 at 10:07 PM Santosh Koshy wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I have a slight dilemma to which I cannot seem to find a definitive
>answer.. We have 4 circuits going from C
This problem has nothing to do with Route Reflection and is simply the
typical behavior for IBGP. Next_Hop attributes are not changed throughout
the AS. Your indication of the two methods of handling next hop resolution
are accurate, and which you use tends to be a point of preference. I find
t
A quick thought here.
You are correct in saying that the network statement is a trigger used to
inject routes into the BGP process. However, it really has nothing to do
with IBGP specifically nor does it in any way allow intra AS routing to
occur. Routing within the AS will always be the domain
Sometimes when I make bank deposits I forget my calculator. In actual fact
I don't own a calculator and bringing my laptop to the ATM to add up the
money sees odd to me. It is in cases like this that I use my brain. I've
also had to quickly rebuild routed networks to avoid downtime and in the
A couple quick notes. However I would suggest if you have a subscription
that you step through Howards BGP series at www.certificationzone.com as it
might help you solidify your understanding.
First off, IBGP is not an IGP. If you want to get from point A to point B
in AS C, IBGP isn't your frie
RWR Enterprises, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>~~~
> http://www.RouterChief.com
>~~~
> NEED A JOB ???
> http://www.oledrews.com/job
>~~~
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Peter Van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
101 - 200 of 480 matches
Mail list logo
