This means that although the switch cannot prevent the forwarding of invalid
frames since it begins forwarding prior to verifying the checksum, it can
keep track of the number of errored frames since it does eventually verify
the checksum. In other words, unlike store and forward switches who
I'm not sure where you got the idea that one big area zero is a bad thing?
In this case, I would highly recommend it. This is a pretty small network
and I really don't see the benefit of adding hierarchy to it from a
multi-area perspective. Keep in mind that the more you segment an OSPF area
I should have limited that to one big area vs one big area 0. I'm all for
single areas when they suit, but I agree that using a non zero area can have
some benefits.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 8/17/2001 at 10:24 AM Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
I'm not sure where you got the
Hey Ralph,
This statement is quite true. Is there an area you wish to break down more
fully?
For support, see the draft-ietf-ospf-abr-alt-04.txt which includes the
following text:
In OSPF domains the area topology is restricted so that there must be
a backbone area (area 0) and all other
It is untouched unless a provider decides to mess with it which is not
completely uncommon.
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 8/15/2001 at 9:19 AM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does ip precedence field remain intact while traveling through different
autonomous systems or is it set to a
The metric that exists in a summary LSA is representative of the entire path
to the destination network, excluding situations where aggregation has taken
place. Specifically, when an ABR generates a type 3, it populates the
metric field of that summary with the current metric for the route as
I believe scan time pertains to the frequency that a PE router queries a
VPNv4 route reflector to ensure that it has a complete routing picture for
its configured VPN's. This is 2547bis functionality. However, to me, this
requires support of outbound route filtering (ORF) and I'm not sure if
This is really the domain of text books on network design and short bursts
of text aren't likely to do the question any justice. As with similar
questions like how many routers in an OSPF area this question yields a
variety of answers depending on the desired functionality and related
~~~
NEED A JOB ???
http://www.oledrews.com/job
~~~
-Original Message-
From: Peter Van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 3:23 PM
To: Ole Drews Jensen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BGP: IBGP usage/clarification [7:15333]
Comments
This is getting ridiculous! I can seem to figure out the address to remove
him.
*** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE ***
On 8/8/2001 at 8:39 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your message
Subject: RE: BGP: IBGP usage/clarification [7:15333]
was not delivered to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
://www.oledrews.com/job
~~~
-Original Message-
From: Peter Van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 2:38 PM
To: Ole Drews Jensen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BGP: IBGP usage/clarification [7:15333]
A couple quick notes. However I would
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
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
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 Canada
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=7i=14797t=14793
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.
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
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 getting at.
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
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 separate
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
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
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'm sure you
know
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
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!!
cheers
Andy
Peter Van Oene wrote on July 13, 2001 at 6:43 PM:
Making the area stub will explicitly deny
ol' CEF keeps a-load-balancing half the traffic to the router
without
a route... ;-)
hence, this is why I want full specifics intra-area, and aggregate-only
inter-area.
I could do it on a Juniper dammit...
take care :-)
Andy
Peter Van Oene wrote on July 18, 2001 at 9:14 PM:
Ahh, I did indeed
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
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:
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
/CCNP
~~~
NEED A JOB ???
http://www.oledrews.com/job
~~~
-Original Message-
From: Peter Van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 1:57 PM
To: Ole Drews Jensen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSPF
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
[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
Tredent
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
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 RS Lab and found it rather interesting that the
first
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 of
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 has
] [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]
A small correction. Traffic engineering databases are populated via new
TLV's in IS-IS (see Draft-ietf-isis
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
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
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
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
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 routing
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
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
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 LIKE
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
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 as far as I recall. You need
to
simply set
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
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
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
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
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 correct
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 in
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
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
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 databases. Hence
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 always
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
in 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 from the perspective of the bgp update
itself. The update is going
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
ointed 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. g I think I have it now!
Maybe...
John
"Peter Van Oene" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/2/01 7:03:16 AM
Synch i
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%
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
*
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 Oene" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: &qu
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
Although its working, I suggest it may not be doing what you want
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
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?
-dave
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
technologies to span across WAN backbones via MPLS.
This works with many layer two encapsulations
including ppp, frame, ethernet
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.
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
Beyond
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:
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
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
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
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
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.
dre
IBGP
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
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
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.
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
to some Cisco IP Telephony/Call Center
training too. :-)
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Van Oene" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: CCIE salary
The CCIE program does little to develop the skill set of a p
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
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
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
***
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
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 192
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 reason
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
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 my
301 - 400 of 468 matches
Mail list logo
