Try this
http://www.cisco.com/public/pubsearch.html
- Original Message -
From: "Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:52 PM
Subject: Single area with large number networks.
>
> Hi, this question is really confuse me :
> What are two pos
doesn't help. I tried before. I also opened the CCIE : TCP/IP routing book,
ACRC book .. but can't found the answer.
Ibam
>
> Try this
> http://www.cisco.com/public/pubsearch.html
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday,
behind why I'm sure I'm correct. The thing is , I could be
wrong either way how do you benefit from it ?
- Original Message -
From: "Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, Novembe
IMHO, B is the best answer as link failures in the area will cause
recalculations.
D is a possible answer; however, "excessive" is a subjective word: OSPF
will generate the number of LSAs necessary to build its tables and the
picture of the network: it will not go beyond the number needed to
'm sure I'm correct. The thing is , I could be
> wrong either way how do you benefit from it ?
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&g
thanks for your response.
But if some router down, the nearest one will send message to DR & BDR, and
DR will send multicast message (it won't be excessive) to its networks.
thanks,
Ibrahim
>
> IMHO, B is the best answer as link failures in the area will cause
> recalculations.
>
> D is a poss
OTECTED]>
To: "Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 2:31 AM
Subject: RE: Single area with large number networks.
>
>
> if you said refer to www.cisco.com, why everybody still need this
> mailing-list ? why there are
ate
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 5:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Single area with large number networks.
IMHO, B is the best answer as link failures in the area will cause
recalculations.
D is a possible answer; however, "excessive" is a subjective word:
g is , I could be
>> wrong either way how do you benefit from it ?
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
Telling someone to use the Cisco search engine for a question like this is
not helpful. It was kind of funny, but also a bit cruel, and definitely a
waste of bandwidth.
Answer A "more reachable errors" is clearly wrong since it's nonsense. I
think answer D is wrong also because an OSPF router
At 09:36 PM 11/14/00, Ibrahim wrote:
>thanks for your response.
>But if some router down, the nearest one will send message to DR & BDR, and
>DR will send multicast message (it won't be excessive) to its networks.
I agree it wouldn't be excessive. Within a LAN, the DR mechanism keeps
adjancies
At 11:11 AM 11/14/00 -0800, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>Answer A "more reachable errors" is clearly wrong since it's nonsense. I
>think answer D is wrong also because an OSPF router doesn't really have a
>link-state database. It has a topology database. (I'm not an OSPF guru,
>but when tryin
er 14, 2000 11:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Single area with large number networks.
At 09:36 PM 11/14/00, Ibrahim wrote:
>thanks for your response.
>But if some router down, the nearest one will send message to DR & BDR, and
>DR will send multicast message (it
In defence of my earlier position that "d" is in fact the other correct answer.
"Priscilla's Point:
>Besides, as I look more closely at the answer, I see that it says,
>"excessive link-state entries in the link-state table." What's a link-state
>table? I think the test writer put a few good-so
ck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: JENNY MCLEOD/NSO/CSDA)
Subject: RE: Single area with large number networks.
But if the "right" answer consists of two choices...
I
OK, I now think the right answer is B and D also. Jenny, Pamela, and Howard
have convinced me.
As Howard said, Answer C, "frequent adjacencies table recalculation" is
even more BS than Answer D, "excessive link-state entries in the link-state
table." There's no such thing as an adjacency table
16 matches
Mail list logo