From: Virnoche, Phil (phil.virnoche@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat May 12 2001 - 15:41:17 GMT-3
I have TR NICS and set it up the way my gut tells me.... (no ring-group) and
it works just fine...
I think these authors were having RSRB hallucinations when they were writing
this poor excuse for a book!
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Carithers [mailto:RCARITHERS@edge2net.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 11:15 AM
To: 'Virnoche, Phil'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Satterlee and Hutnick CCIE Practice lab kit - DLSW and
Bridgi ng
I did that lab and thought the same thing. I want to prove it but I need to
find a tokenring NIC first.
-----Original Message-----
From: Virnoche, Phil [mailto:phil.virnoche@attws.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 10:30 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Satterlee and Hutnick CCIE Practice lab kit - DLSW and Bridging
Group-
Has anyone else done this one? I COMPLETELY disagree with the configuration
for R5 and R1. Reference pages 366-367. I do not see any need for a
source-bridge ring-group statement on DLSW peers that are only hosting
ethernet segments. Isn't that what the beauty of DLSW+? .... terminating the
ring at the peer.... unlike RSRB?
Unless someone can explain why, I am calling BULLSHIT on these authors again
! (excuse my french)... This book is SOOOOO full of errors.... on the bright
side though it is making me have to prove my knowledge ( or lack there of
)....
Any thoughts????
Philip G. Virnoche
Sr. Network Engineer - AT&T Wireless
phone: 425.580.5239
cell: 206.601.3134
"HAM AND EGGS - A day's work for a chicken; A lifetime commitment for a
pig."
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:40 GMT-3