This is probably as good a place as any to broach one of my pet peeves -
that being the reliability of the information one gets in ANY of the study
materials most of us use. We've had conversations here in the past about
some of the more bizarre proclamations one can find on CCO, for example. I
recall one I posted here a couple of times in the past, one which states
that the max diameter of an EIGRP network is 224 because of the TCP limit on
how far packets can travel. ( No I can't locate the link now, and I have
better things to do than search for it again )
the point being that unless one is already expert in the material, how is
one to know whether or not a given statement can be accepted, or must be
questioned?
Let me give a good one I just read in "Large Scale IP Network Solutions", a
Cisco press book with the letters "CCIE" prominently displayed on the
binding, just below the words "Cisco Professional Development" In other
words, yet another of the Cisco Press books which purports to help one along
the road to the CCIE.
Quote: "The only route RIP understands as the default route is 0.0.0.0. It
carries this route by default, which means you do not have to specify it.
For RIP to advertise a default route, it must find a route to the 0.0.0.0
network in its routing table."
OK. I understand what is being said. Now consider the following:
R8------------R7----------------R6---------------R5
10.1.1.0/24 192.168.1.16/28 192.168.2.48/28
relevant configuration for R7:
interface Serial1
ip address 10.1.1.7 255.255.255.0
clockrate 2000000
!
interface TokenRing0
ip address 192.168.1.17 255.255.255.240
ring-speed 4
!
router rip
network 10.0.0.0
network 192.168.1.0
!
ip classless
ip default-network 10.0.0.0
R7#
R7's routing table:
* 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 10.1.1.0 is directly connected, Serial1
192.168.1.0/28 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 192.168.1.16 is directly connected, TokenRing0
R 192.168.2.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.1.18, 00:00:03, TokenRing0
R7#
note that 10.0.0.0 is marked as the candidate default network, based on the
command ip default-network found in the configuration above
R6 routing table:
Gateway of last resort is 192.168.1.17 to network 0.0.0.0
R 10.0.0.0/8 [120/1] via 192.168.1.17, 00:00:15, TokenRing0
192.168.1.0/28 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 192.168.1.16 is directly connected, TokenRing0
192.168.2.0/28 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 192.168.2.48 is directly connected, Serial1
R* 0.0.0.0/0 [120/1] via 192.168.1.17, 00:00:15, TokenRing0
R6#
Huh??????? where did the quad zero come from? The only thing I have going is
the default-network command on R7. No static to quad zero.
R5 routing table:
Gateway of last resort is 192.168.2.49 to network 0.0.0.0
172.29.0.0/24 is subnetted, 4 subnets
C 172.29.200.0 is directly connected, Loopback0
C 172.29.3.0 is directly connected, TokenRing0
C 172.29.2.0 is directly connected, TokenRing0
C 172.29.101.0 is directly connected, TokenRing0
R 10.0.0.0/8 [120/2] via 192.168.2.49, 00:00:08, Serial1
R 192.168.1.0/24 [120/1] via 192.168.2.49, 00:00:08, Serial1
192.168.2.0/28 is subnetted, 1 subnets
C 192.168.2.48 is directly connected, Serial1
R* 0.0.0.0/0 [120/2] via 192.168.2.49, 00:00:09, Serial1
R5#
Huh?????? Again, where exactly did this quad zero come from?
now if you follow the path of the 0.0.0.0 routes in the various routing
tables, you see that R5 shows 0.0.0.0 going to R6, and R6's 0.0.0.0 points
to the interface where lies R7.
But nowhere in this pod is there any reference to an ip route 0.0.0.0, nor
does the 0.0.0.0 route appear in R7's routing table, whence originates the
default route.
My read on this is that Cisco's implementation of RIP will indeed interpret
a default-network statement as an equivalent of the quad zero route and
therefore will perpetuate it.
But that's not what this "CCIE" level book says. In fact, it says something
which would lead one to conclude that RIP should not behave this way at all.
I suppose I SHOULD grant the possibility that older IOS versions do behave
as the book describes. I'm using 12.1, and I do know that many things
changed in 12.1, including some things that many of us take for gospel
because we have proven them in earlier IOS versions.
So what's a body ( not to mention mind ) to do?
My point being that it is not easy for those of us who were not involved in
the working committees of the CCITT or the IETF to really know how to judge
the secondary sources we read. Cisco in particular, and especially in the
certification game, presents itself as the ultimate authority on a lot of
things. I daresay Cisco makes great effort to produce products and software
that is standards compliant. So why does stuff like this happen? Because the
people who read the RFC's and write the books are not conversant with the
code designs and code operations that were written into the IOS? things that
result in a behaviour which if interpreted as I have, seems to belie the way
something is "supposed" to work?
I mean, I know a couple of places that propose to teach us about
access-lists, and if you do things exactly the way they are described in the
text, routing breaks. This isn't just in Todd Lammle's books, BTW, but in at
least one CCIE level treatise published by someplace that's trying to make
money selling CCIE prep materials.
If it's like this for standard stuff like RIP, what prayer is there for us
understanding nonintuitive, non standard and arbitrary mappings of DoD based
protocols onto the OSI model? I've said it before - when I read some of the
RFC's I don't see people talking about layers or operation and
responsibility. I see people talking in terms of subroutines and process
modules. NFS and ARP and BGP do things because that is how they operate, not
because of their place in the OSI model.
Go to bed, Chuck, you've had a long day and this is beyond any point of
redeeming study value.
Yes, Dear.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Priscilla Oppenheimer
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 11:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Does session layer protocol use IP address ? [7:28378]
At 06:18 PM 12/8/01, anil wrote:
>This is from Cisco Oct 2001 Packet..
>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/784/packet/oct01/p76-training.html
>
>It must be out of date :-)
Not "out of date." Just wrong. You can keep coming up with wrong material.
What's your point?
Have you looked at NFS with a Sniffer? Have you read a Unix man page? Have
you checked some RFCs?
Have you considered what NFS does? What are its functions? What do its
messages look like? What protocols below it does it rely on? What problems
were its creators trying to solve?
Please stop sending messages about this topic (or any other topic) until
you have done some real research. In your last message you quoted page 9 of
a CCNA book. Sorry to burst your bubble, but nobody on this list could care
less what it says on page 9 of a CCNA book. This list is for people
studying for advanced Cisco certifications.
Priscilla
>-Anil
>------------------------
>
>5. Session Layer
>The session layer provides services in the application to manage inter-host
>communication. Think of this function as the old-time telephone switchboard
>operator: first, watching for a light on the switchboard indicating a
>connection was needed, next connecting and monitoring the call, and then
>finally disconnecting it by pulling the plug. For example, Network File
>System (NFS) is like an extended feature Telnet program for UNIX that keeps
>a connection (session) alive and available until the terminate command is
>given. Other examples include Structured Query Language (SQL), Remote
>Procedure Call (RPC), and X-Windows.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 3:13 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Does session layer protocol use IP address ? [7:28378]
>
>
>That's 40% right.
>
>SQL, NFS, and XWindows are application-layer protocols.
>
>RPC and NetBIOS are session-layer protocols.
>
>We often have discussions about which books are best. Todd Lammle books can
>teach you basic router configuration. They are often wrong where protocol
>behavior is concerned.
>
>A better reference for learning about OSI is the OSI paper by Howard
>Berkowitz at http://www.certificationzone.com.
>
>Priscilla
>
>At 11:32 PM 12/7/01, anil wrote:
> > >The session layer is an elusive beast that is not implemented much
> >Yes, I checked it out..
> >Session layer protocols include:
> >SQL, NFS, RPC, NetBios, Xwindows are examples of session layer protocols.
> >Page 9 of CCNA 2nd Edition study guide Todd Lammle
> >
> >-Anil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: anil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:17 PM
> >To: Priscilla Oppenheimer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: RE: Does session layer protocol use IP address ? [7:28378]
> >
> >
> > >The session layer is an elusive beast that is not implemented much
> >Wait a sec, I thought SQL, NFS and netbios were session layer protocols?
> >Someone please correct me.
> >-Anil
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> >Priscilla Oppenheimer
> >Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 9:55 PM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: Does session layer protocol use IP address ? [7:28378]
> >
> >
> >At 02:59 AM 12/7/01, mlh wrote:
> > >Hi, there,
> > >
> > >I read Todd Lammle's CCNA2.0 study guide and found this sentence:
>"Remember
> > >that none of the upper
> > >layers know anything about networking or network addresses." I am
>wondering
> > >if the session layer doesn't
> > >use network address, how can it establish a dialogue with other session
> > >layer in other host?
> >
> >I would probably disagree with Todd's statement, although it's taken out
of
> >context and you haven't given us enough information to say that the
> >statement is definitely "wrong."
> >
> >However, try to picture the numerous OSI pictures you have seen. Most of
> >them show horizontal lines between a layer on one host talking to the
same
> >layer on another host. So the session layer talks to the session layer on
> >the other host. That's probably what Todd was getting at.
> >
> >However, the pictures also show vertical lines. A layer calls on a layer
> >below to provide services. Each layer offers services to layers above it.
> >
> >The session layer is an elusive beast that is not implemented much. But
one
> >example might help. NetBIOS is a session layer. On a Windows client, when
> >you access a Server Message Block (SMB) server, NetBIOS has the job of
> >setting up a session with the server. Before it can do that, however, it
> >must find the address of the server. If it's a modern Windows network,
then
> >SMB and NetBIOS are probably running above TCP/IP and UDP/IP. So NetBIOS
> >sends a DNS or WINS query to find the IP address of the named server. It
> >then sets up a NetBIOS session with the server. Actually, first, the
client
> >sets up a TCP connection. TCP has port numbers. The client sends to the
> >well-known TCP port for NetBIOS session (139) and use an ephemeral port
on
> >its side. These port numbers could be considered "addresses" at the
> >transport layer.
> >
> >Anyway, back to the question. The statement is at best over-simplified. I
> >recommend you get yourself a sniffer and watch what really happens
between
> >layers. (Ethereal is free by the way.)
> >
> >Priscilla
> >
> >
> >
> > >Thank you for your time.
> > >
> > >mlh
> >________________________
> >
> >Priscilla Oppenheimer
> >http://www.priscilla.com
>________________________
>
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>http://www.priscilla.com
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=28642&t=28642
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
