I cannot see any problem using vlan from your access layer up to the
aggregation point, as long as the PE has enough capacity to hold the routes.
If necessary, you can always use several PEs in one location to spread out
your aggregation, you may want to use some lower end routers/switches, kind
o
For a week or so, the CCIE proctors from Cisco
are answering ccie lab related questions at @!#$.
You can double check your questions there.
http://www.@!#$.com
- Paul
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49087&t=49048
i forgot to include the url, here it is:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/certifications/cert.html
-Original Message-
From: Mirza, Timur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 11:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: mpls vis a vis the routing & switching track
Sean Knox wrote:
> This might help:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/2600/prodlit/1575_pp.htm
>
> Goes over some MPLS terminology and concepts as well as the product lines
> needed to accomplish various roles on the MPLS network (CE, PE, P).
Thanks for the reference. Here's what the
"dre" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Also, most production networks use 12.0ST for MPLS-TE and MPLS-VPN,
> and even then, they use specialized custom code (IOS patches) that you
> cannot download on CCO. If you want real-world experience, you have to
start there
12.2(8)T1, telco feature set, runs on 2600 with 8MB flash and 32 MB dram.
That should be enough for MPLS.
dre wrote:
>
> 2600 supports MPLS labels only (not MPLS-TE, etc) code to run would be
> 12.1.14 (48M DRAM, 16M Flash)
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=434
This might help:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/2600/prodlit/1575_pp.htm
Goes over some MPLS terminology and concepts as well as the product lines
needed to accomplish various roles on the MPLS network (CE, PE, P).
Sean
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
2500 does not support MPLS, but it does support ISIS and BGP - 12.0.22 (4M
DRAM / 8M Flash)
2600 supports MPLS labels only (not MPLS-TE, etc) code to run would be
12.1.14 (48M DRAM, 16M Flash)
3600 supports MPLS well with:
MPLS labels -> 12.0.22 (48M DRAM, 8M Flash)
MPLS, MPLS-TE -> 12.1.14 (48M
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>
>> >I'm serious. Is there any reason why MPLS cannot be transported directly
>on
>> >fiber,
>> >perhaps even in time slots? Have the GMPLS and IPO WGs addressed this
>issue?
>> >
>> >-- TT
>>
>> That's exactly what those two working groups are doing, and other
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >I'm serious. Is there any reason why MPLS cannot be transported directly
on
> >fiber,
> >perhaps even in time slots? Have the GMPLS and IPO WGs addressed this
issue?
> >
> >-- TT
>
> That's exactly what those two working groups are doing, and other
> groups in the
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> I passed it. Just read the 2 Cicso books, know ATM well, and use every
> other source you have.
I was hoping to get by with minimal ATM but I gather from what you say that
the
interworking of MPLS and ATM is considered a necessary part of the
ceritification.
Accord
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mpls exam [7:42225]
I passed it. Just read the 2 Cicso books, know ATM well, and use every
other source you have.
I hear that Foundry'
At 8:14 AM -0400 4/23/02, Tom Scott wrote:
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>
>> >Is there some reason that ATM is necessary for MPLS implementations in
low
>> >end Cisco products? It's been my understanding that VPI/VCI field usage
>> >for labels in any implementation is generally not used. Eve
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Is there some reason that ATM is necessary for MPLS implementations in low
> >end Cisco products? It's been my understanding that VPI/VCI field usage
> >for labels in any implementation is generally not used. Every mpls
network
> >I've worked on used shim headers
Hi Tom,
Which URL are you looking for?
At 07:15 PM 4/22/2002 -0400, Tom Scott wrote:
>Music to my ears.
>
>If anyone has a list of exercises for would-be MPLS addicts, please post the
>URL.
>
>-- TT
>
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>
> > >Is there some reason that ATM is necessary for MPLS imple
I passed it. Just read the 2 Cicso books, know ATM well, and use every
other source you have.
I hear that Foundry's MPLS is better though
"Dave Dunbar"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
04/22/2002 11:35 PM
Please respond to "Dave Dunbar"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Music to my ears.
If anyone has a list of exercises for would-be MPLS addicts, please post the
URL.
-- TT
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Is there some reason that ATM is necessary for MPLS implementations in low
> >end Cisco products? It's been my understanding that VPI/VCI field usage
> >fo
>Is there some reason that ATM is necessary for MPLS implementations in low
>end Cisco products? It's been my understanding that VPI/VCI field usage
>for labels in any implementation is generally not used. Every mpls network
>I've worked on used shim headers which makes MPLS l2 agnostic.
Not as
Is there some reason that ATM is necessary for MPLS implementations in low
end Cisco products? It's been my understanding that VPI/VCI field usage
for labels in any implementation is generally not used. Every mpls network
I've worked on used shim headers which makes MPLS l2 agnostic.
At 05:
>according to Cisco's Software Advisor: ( requires CCO login )
>http://www.cisco.com/kobayashi/support/tac/t_index.shtml#S
>scroll down to the software advisor link
>
>CEF/dCEF is supported on any number of IOS images for the 2500 ( except for
>the image I have in my own pod, of course :- wrote in
according to Cisco's Software Advisor: ( requires CCO login )
http://www.cisco.com/kobayashi/support/tac/t_index.shtml#S
scroll down to the software advisor link
CEF/dCEF is supported on any number of IOS images for the 2500 ( except for
the image I have in my own pod, of course :- wrote in messa
RFC 2547 would be nice but not necessary. What I''d like is practice with
the paths,
basic things like that. Regarding the use of CEF, is that required? I was
hoping for
low-budget MPLS labs, maybe even down into the 1600 or 1700 Series. If one
were willing
to give up the efficiency of the CEF swi
>Howard and scenario builders,
>
>Do you have any MPLS labs that don't use ATM? Maybe combining low-end
>(read "affordable") cisco routers and James Leu's "MPLS for LInux"
>project?
>
>-- TT
>
Good idea. I haven't written any yet for our labs, but we
specifically upgraded equipment to do so. Th
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40207]
Hi List,
If you would read this study guide to it's end,
you could find there nice ~10 lines perl script
which explains what the guy actually did - he just
shifted ascii of each english letter 128 chars.
Have I mentioned that my m
Hi List,
If you would read this study guide to it's end,
you could find there nice ~10 lines perl script
which explains what the guy actually did - he just
shifted ascii of each english letter 128 chars.
Have I mentioned that my mother tongue is Russian?
--
Semion Lisyansky
Its in english now
http://www.certificationzone.com/studyguides/studyview/?Issue=51&IssueDate=04-02-2002&CP=1
"Brian Zeitz" @groupstudy.com on 04/01/2002
12:00:40 PM
Please respond to "Brian Zeitz"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Su
rom: Brian Zeitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 4:29 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
>
>I don't know, last time someone made a pitch like that. I found out they
>got paid for doing work for the site.
>
>An April fools joke to market your website... So you win either way...
>
Brian,
You seem hostile about this. Could you tell me what subterfuge was
involved? From the very beginning, it was identified with Certzone.
Whether or not it was marketing -- I agree it is, and personally had
nothin
, 2002 9:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
Galina Pildush is CCIE # 3176 and currently is active.
C.Q.Nguyen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Robert Fowler
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:57 PM
To
Galina Pildush is CCIE # 3176 and currently is active.
C.Q.Nguyen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Robert Fowler
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
I noticed a
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=40180&t=40035
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
02/04/2002 11:07 am -
"Howard C. Berkowitz"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
02/04/2002 07:27 am
Please respond to "Howard C. Berkowitz"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
It's actually in
>!
>!
>!
>Howard: It's in cyrillic characters but it certainly isn't in Russian.
>The English can be read if one sounds out the cyrillic characters. I'm
>not a Russian reader but I do know how to sound out most of the
>alphabet. This was confirmed by a native Russian speaker.
>
>One of the firs
!
!
!
Howard: It's in cyrillic characters but it certainly isn't in Russian.
The English can be read if one sounds out the cyrillic characters. I'm
not a Russian reader but I do know how to sound out most of the
alphabet. This was confirmed by a native Russian speaker.
One of the first lines
--Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
Today's date? Here? The 2nd of April (when the mail was sent)!
Gee, som
, to each his own
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Robert Fowler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:00 PM
>To: Brian Zeitz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
>
>
>
>Actually, the site provi
Please respond to "Howard C. Berkowitz"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
>Yea.. I am sure it is great.. if you are fluent in Russian
>
>Tim
>CCIE 9015
May I point out today's
nded opinion in pursuit of his 3rd major certification.
:)
-Original Message-
From: Brian Zeitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 4:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
I don't know, last time someone made a pitch like t
ersa. So the joke is not on me :) Thanks
> for the free guide :)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 11:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
>
&
s you mentioned :-) Anyway, to each his own
-Original Message-
From: Robert Fowler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:00 PM
To: Brian Zeitz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
Actually, the site provides much more than th
It's actually in Russian, but it turned out that it was highly
dependent on browser. Word 2000, almost any browser on the Mac as
long as the OS is Mac X, etc., work, as do an assortment of other
things. I personally can't read it, but I promise:
the April Fool's part really is in Russian
I noticed a Galina Pildush was listed as CCIE # 5858, but using Cisco's
on-line verification tool it shows a David Wolsefer as being CCIE # 5858.
Does Cisco has a certification path for people with split personalities? :)
-Original Message-
From: David Wolsefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
think
it's worth every dollar my employer spent. :)
Robert
-Original Message-
From: Brian Zeitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
Figure out the font then? It is probably Wingdings
ments, Powerpoint slides etc. Maybe they encrypted it in DES? Ha ha.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 12:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
This isn't in Russian, it's a tra
This isn't in Russian, it's a transliteration of English
using Cyrillic characters. April Fool.
Someone's cute idea - bet the English character version
is going to cost.
Fred.
> Yea.. I am sure it is great.. if you are fluent in Russian
>
> Tim
> CCIE 9015
>
> -Original Message-
those preparing for upcoming lab dates, not to mention dealing with crabby
customers, have no sense of humor.
BTW, Howard, I ran into a quote of yours on a terrorism newsgroup of all
places.
something about false pregnancy being the result of laboring under a
misconception.
Chuck
""Howard C.
It is not permited to sse it! yousiad it is free today!!
Julio Garcia
- Original Message -
From: "David Wolsefer"
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 9:21 AM
Subject: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
> Galina Pildush is publishing an MPLS white paper today on
> www.certificati
>Yea.. I am sure it is great.. if you are fluent in Russian
>
>Tim
>CCIE 9015
May I point out today's date?
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>David Wolsefer
>Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 10:21 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: MP
Uhh,
No Speaka Rusky
Free Cisco Cisco Stuff at http://www.gdd.net
- Original Message -
From: "David Wolsefer"
To:
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 10:21 AM
Subject: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
> Galina Pildush is publishing an MPLS white paper today
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 11:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
Yea.. I am sure it is great.. if you are fluent in Russian
Tim
CCIE 9015
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
David Wolsefer
Thats hebrew is it??
"David Wolsefer" @groupstudy.com on 04/01/2002
10:21:18 AM
Please respond to "David Wolsefer"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
Galina Pildush is publishing an MPLS white paper today on
www.cer
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
Yea.. I am sure it is great.. if you are fluent in Russian
Tim
CCIE 9015
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
David Wolsefer
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 10:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: MPLS White Paper Announcement [7:40035]
Gal
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 MPLS white paper today on
> www.certificationzone.com. You better hurry though
So the answer is it depends! On what type of interface you are running. If
you are using the Flexwan or Optical Service modules, then yes, it supports
ingree and egress MPLS L3 VPNs as a PE. You also need a SUP2/MSFC2/PFC2 to
do this. Might want to be running Native code set also.
The issue r
At 3:29 AM -0500 3/22/02, Tom Scott wrote:
>Kent, Irwin,
>
>This is an interesting exchange of perspectives. Could you
>or someone else comment on GMPLS?
GMPLS does many of the things you are describing. It "generalizes"
MPLS setup beyond the current packet/frame oriented paths to paths
that do
Kent, Irwin,
This is an interesting exchange of perspectives. Could you
or someone else comment on GMPLS? How does it factor into
the comparison of MPLS vs. FR? Is there anything about the
combination of MPLS / GMPLS that gives it an advantage over
FR?
Another issue I'd like to understand in thi
Irwin,
""Irwin Lazar"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> John,
>
> I think you brought an interesting topic.
>
> With all these pitches about Layer 3 VPN, the question has been bothering
me
> for a while, how many enterprises out there really need to have an
> an
But honestly now, how many enterprises really need their frame-relay
circuits configured for full-mesh? Almost none.
And in particular, if you really want to talk about offering FR circuits
over MPLS, why mess around with RFC2547 (L3VPN's)? You talk about looking at
and routing customer's layer-
John,
What kind of circuits do you have today. The cool thing about MPLS is that
lets say your have a lot of Frame-Relay circuits. As a service provider, I
could take those FR circuits in and give you a full-mesh. How, by using
MPLS VPNs. So what I do now is pay attention to your ip routing,
So to answer your original question, yes! So what do you have to study.
Well you might want to know how to set up simple label switching. This
includes P and PE. You might also want to setup VPNs using OSPF and IS-IS
as the transit IGP. You might also want to set it up using MP-BGP.
Also pla
- Original Message -
From: "nrf"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: MPLS VPN [7:38749]
>
> Personally, I think RFC2547 will be surpassed by L2VPN's (both kinds), at
> least in the foreseeable future.
Couldn't agree more on this.
layer 3 VPN's...
Cheers,
-Michael
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
nrf
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MPLS VPN [7:38749]
Surely you will agree that VPN's that require MBGP, which includ
- Original Message -
From: "nrf"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: MPLS VPN [7:38749]
>
> Personally, I think RFC2547 will be surpassed by L2VPN's (both kinds), at
> least in the foreseeable future.
Couldn't agree more on this.
e-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> nrf
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MPLS VPN [7:38749]
>
>
> EoMPLS was exactly what I was referring to. The guy asked for PE
> capability, but didn&#
d not be good news:(
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
nrf
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MPLS VPN [7:38749]
EoMPLS was exactly what I was referring to. The guy asked for PE
capability, but didn'
;
> -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"
able 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]
Yes
""flight"" wrote in message
Yes
""flight"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> CAN C6K ACT AS THE PE DEVICES
>
> --
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38755&t=38749
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: ht
John,
I think you brought an interesting topic.
With all these pitches about Layer 3 VPN, the question has been bothering me
for a while, how many enterprises out there really need to have an
any-to-any solution? Less than 0.5% is my guess. Most of the enterprise
client/server applications fit
Interesting, let me also bring few things up here, not that
I have much experience in MPLS/VPN but who does ? :-)
I suppose one of the problems with this particular service is that
not all SP's or Enterprises fully understand the potential, or technology
in general. First, SP's might not be able
To make things even more interesting...
While discussing this with a few different vendors I decided
that this particular solution is smoke-and-mirrors, at least in
our area. We'd have to buy new point-to-point circuits that
all point to a _single_ POP.
MPLS isn't even needed in this case be
John,
I think you brought an interesting topic.
With all these pitches about Layer 3 VPN, the question has been bothering me
for a while, how many enterprises out there really need to have an
any-to-any solution? Less than 0.5% is my guess. Most of the enterprise
client/server applications fit
>From the top of my head the cisco party line on this is to use the
as5300 as a LAC for a 7200/7400/... LNS which would do the MPLS encaps.
Then again there has been a lot of standards work on making the LNS/LAC
communication over MPLS.
There's my two cents for what it's worth. But these devel
searching the software advisor by features, doesn't look like the as5300
support MPLS. Maybe someone can find something different.
Woody
CCNP
-Original Message-
From: Michalis Palis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: MPLS and A
Uh, Are you sure? Take a look at the C/S lab requirements. Not the written
requirements, but the lab requirements. Notice how the lab has practically
nothing to do with the written(s).
Part of the great confusion over the C/S program is the fact that it has 8
possible writtens (each one concen
um...I work with Optical/voice/cable/dsl.. I didn't know about this cert
but it sounds pretty good. I'm concentrating on the R/S right now because I
believe that it is a good foundation to expand from. I work for a
Cable/Telephone/Broadband Internet company that offers all 3 services over a
sin
onment in the same company?
> Just my $0.2
>
>
> >From: "Michael Cohen"
> >Reply-To: "Michael Cohen"
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: RE: MPLS in CCIE [7:36682]
> >Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:11:48 -0500
> >
> >Where did
be in the real world? I mean how many people out there actually work in a
optical/voice/dsl/cable environment in the same company?
Just my $0.2
>From: "Michael Cohen"
>Reply-To: "Michael Cohen"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: MPLS in CCIE [7:36682]
&
idder
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MPLS in CCIE [7:36682]
That C/S cert seems to be the way to go! That's what I'd go for, but since
only one person has ever passed it, I think it may be safe to say that I'd
never get a CCIE number tha
Well no, I would actually argue that right now the Juniper JNCIE is the
better way to go, for a number of reasons. Yeah yeah, I know I'm going to
get flamed for that (and already had been, on previous occasions when I said
this). But the fact is, not only is the JNCIE program is testing on the
DecNet, IPX and AppleTalk. Of course chaos, apollo and pup I haven't seen
> recently in the real world.
>
> David C Prall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dcp.dcptech.com
> - Original Message -
> From: "Steven A. Ridder"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002
That C/S cert seems to be the way to go! That's what I'd go for, but since
only one person has ever passed it, I think it may be safe to say that I'd
never get a CCIE number that way. I may go for that cert once I get my R/S
CCIE done. What makes that test so hard? And has anyone heard anythi
Here u go.
CCIE Communications & Services
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/certifications/services.html
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=36809&t=36682
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://w
The latter option is what it sounds like they're offering. My
understanding is that our routers would still need to run a routing
protocol to advertise local rotues to the SP, but they'd only actually
use a default route pointing back to the SP.
According to them--or at least the sales drone I w
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
t is outdated or not. I still have customers running
> > Vines,
> > > DecNet, IPX and AppleTalk. Of course chaos, apollo and pup I haven't
> seen
> > > recently in the real world.
> > >
> > > David C Prall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dcp.dcptech.c
Tis a shame too. I ran a Vines network for about 8 years and have yet to
find a better protocol.
- Original Message -
From: "ko haag"
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: MPLS in CCIE [7:36682]
> Same here, alot of my customers are still running
. I still have customers running
> Vines,
> > DecNet, IPX and AppleTalk. Of course chaos, apollo and pup I haven't
seen
> > recently in the real world.
> >
> > David C Prall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dcp.dcptech.com
> > - Original Message -
> > Fro
ers running
Vines,
> DecNet, IPX and AppleTalk. Of course chaos, apollo and pup I haven't seen
> recently in the real world.
>
> David C Prall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dcp.dcptech.com
> - Original Message -
> From: "Steven A. Ridder"
> To:
> Sent:
I haven't seen
> recently in the real world.
>
> David C Prall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dcp.dcptech.com
> - Original Message -
> From: "Steven A. Ridder"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:51 PM
> Subject: Re: MPLS in CCIE [7:36682]
>
en at
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/certprog/testing/beta_exams.h
tm). Maybe we can expect a new recycle at the CCIE program?
Persio
- Original Message -
From: "Steven A. Ridder"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: MPLS in CCIE [7:36682]
I see your point on security, but I don't completely agree. Your current
Frame Relay network is only as secure as your carrier. If someone at your
carrier maps a PVC between you and company X, real traffic can flow
(assuming your router picks it up and places on the physical interface,
which it li
"Steven A. Ridder"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: MPLS in CCIE [7:36682]
> For routing and switching - none. Is it me or is the R&S track getting
> outdated? It seems to cover technologies that, although are useful, not
as
> current.
>
> --
For routing and switching - none. Is it me or is the R&S track getting
outdated? It seems to cover technologies that, although are useful, not as
current.
--
RFC 1149 Compliant.
""Persio Pucci"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How much of MPLS (if some at all
Okay, I just got off the phone with a vendor and I have a better handle
on what they're actually proposing. Here's the scoop:
They offer a couple of different variations of the MPLS solution. The
first solution requires that we readdress our entire network to match
their addressing scheme. Thi
i was pitched this very thing recently by wcom and qwest.. basically it is
only as secure as your carriers.. if some "f*cks up" and imports something
into your VRF, either a default, another vpn, or whatever you security
is finished.. plug banks are supposed to encrypt over IPSEC, so why bother
ru
Kevin,
Thanks for ur help. I am having a rest from the office and I believe my
coleague made it worked by creating an ebgp session between 2 loopback
addresses. Now my issue is how to make it work with a 128 Kbps isdn access
line. Cisco has still not solved the ppp multilink issue into an MPLS
b
I did this a couple of months ago, but I belive I did
it on a juniper PE to a cisco CE. I'll Have to check
when I go into work in the am. I'll get back to ya but
I don;t belive the PE in this case was a Cisco. I
might be able to help anyway. Let me look into it.
--- richard dumoulin wrote:
> An
;
> -Original Message-
> From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MPLS and VPN Architectures book [7:34792]
>
>
> The book is all-right, it's not great. It's OK as an intro book to
101 - 200 of 263 matches
Mail list logo
