CCNP Switching Exam 640-504 [7:32023]

2002-01-15 Thread Maurizio Moroni
Guys, I've noticed that on the official exam blueprint there is no mention of ATM LANE. But the Cisco CCNP Switching Exam Certi?cation Guide book from Cisco Press has an entire chapter on it. I know that it's maybe better for me to learn it anyway, but maybe I can concentrate on more relevant th

RE: CCNP Switching Exam 640-504 [7:32023]

2002-01-15 Thread John McCartney
I took this exam back in October of 2001 and it mad very little about ATM questions at all, maybe 2 at most. HTH John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=32034&t=32023 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: ht

Re: CCNP Switching Exam 640-504 [7:32023]

2002-01-15 Thread David L. Blair
I did not have any ATM related questions you might, but I doubt it. -- "Through Complexity there is Simplicity, Through Simplicity there is Complexity" David L. Blair - CCNP, CCNA, MCSE, CBE, A+, 3Wizard ""Maurizio Moroni"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: CCNP Switching Exam 640-504 [7:32023]

2002-01-15 Thread tu do
Moroni, I studied hard on ATM LAN switching. I passed 640-504 on 01-02-02. There was no question about ATM in the exam. I checked with cisco.com and found ATM was removed. Good luck, Tu Do. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=32054&t=32023 ---

RE: CCNP Switching Exam 640-504 [7:32023]

2002-01-16 Thread amanda lalli-cafini
Thanks for that, I am schedualed to take the exam in early Feb. I read the chapter on ATM and also have a background with ATM so i thought it was pretty easy; but i remember that it was a bear to learn it for the first time. regards amanda Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/r

Re: CCNP Switching Exam 640-504 [7:32023]

2002-01-16 Thread steve skinner
rom: "Maurizio Moroni" >Reply-To: "Maurizio Moroni" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: CCNP Switching Exam 640-504 [7:32023] >Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:19:38 -0500 > >Guys, > >I've noticed that on the official exam blueprint there is no mention of >AT