From: Brian Dennis (brian@xxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jan 09 2002 - 17:22:10 GMT-3
Howard,
How many other "honorary" CCIEs are there besides you Howard? ;-) I haven't
heard of any myself.
I do a lot of work in the security area and teach/develop CCIE prep courses
but that doesn't mean I consider myself an honorary Security CCIE. I will
just take the lab and let Cisco be the judge if I'm a Security CCIE or not.
That's usually how it works in the real world but maybe I could just take
your route and promote myself to a triple CCIE. ;-)
I don't think that the CCSI should be compared to the CCIE. The CCSI is
based on teaching a very low level Cisco router course like the ICND. If you
think that the CCSI is comparable to the CCIE, you're sadly mistaken. If
they should grandfather CCSI's to anything it should be CCNA and not CCIE. I
know many CCSI's that couldn't network they way out of a paper bag in the
real world and I'm not just talking about the newer ones.
Lastly if you're not writing CCIE prep material to the actual lab test then
you shouldn't have any issues with the NDA. Someone who writes CCIE prep
material who isn't an actual CCIE because they are worried about NDA issues
sounds kind of messed up to me.
Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S)(ISP/Dial) CCSI #98640
5G Networks, Inc.
brian@5g.net
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Howard C. Berkowitz
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:55 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: NSSA
>Wow, looks like everyones going for their CCIE now. Howard is even throwing
>his hat into the ring. ;-)
>
>Good luck on your lab Howard.
>
>Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S)(ISP/Dial) CCSI #98640
>5G Networks, Inc.
>bdennis@5g.net
Actually, not quite. Paul and I thought that I might be able to
contribute here.
At the present time, I have no plans to go through the CCIE process.
This is principally a business decision. Since I am partially in the
business of generating study materials, and Cisco intellectual
property attorneys are quite aggressive, I made the decision that by
not taking the CCIE, I could not be meaningfully accused of NDA
violations.
Also, my CCSI (93005) precedes the CCIE program. At the time, the
certification often involved two weeks or more of testing and
demonstration, and, indeed, there was a Cisco proposal to grandfather
pre-1995 CCSIs.
While I thoroughly support the CCIE as a means of advancement,
especially in the support area, I think I have enough demonstrated
experience that it's really not important if I have it or not.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>Howard C. Berkowitz
>Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 8:39 AM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: NSSA
>
>
>I think a large part of the issue is that the questions are being
>posed with respect to protocol behavior, without any real clue of the
>problem to be solved (i.e., the particular topology in mind).
>
>
>>comments inline
>>
>>At 10:54 PM 1/8/2002 +0000, omar guarisco wrote:
>>>it's not possible to avoid conversion Type7 to Type5 configure the
>>>area NSSA as totally stub using the command on ABR
>>
>>Sure it is. Although technically, what happens is likely more of a
>>filtering of type 5 announcements vs an interpretation of P bit
>>settings leading to a decision not to convert type 7's to 5's.
>
>Stating things functionally, it certainly is possible to have an area
>be both totally stubby and not-so-stubby. The behavior of such an
>area is that it can have an ASBR that obtains external routes, and,
>assuming the ASBR does not have ABR functionality, sends the
>externals into both the local area and to area 0.0.0.0.
>
>Assume a separate ABR for this area. If the area is totally stubby,
>that ABR will inject only a default route.
>
>Having the same physical router as ABR and ASBR is a special case
>with additional characteristics. Is this the specific problem, Omar,
>you are trying to solve? Or are you trying to have the externals
>known only in the nonzero area?
>
>>
>>
>>>area 1 nssa no-summary
>>>
>>>so that a default route using LSA type 3 from the ABR
>>
>>
>>Making the area totally stubby removes the inter area routing
>>information (Type 3 LSAs) from the area. It has nothing to do with
>>externals.
>>
>>>Another question: How it could be that on a NSSA area a router is
>>>ASBR is and also an ABR ??? Moreover that NSSA area won't support
>>>virual links
>>
>>
>>I take it you didn't check the link I provided which pictorially
>>describes this exact situation. The router is an ABR that has an
>>interface in the backbone, and interface in an NSSA area, and
>>happens to redistribute some routing information. In this case, it
>>wishes not to inject that routing information into the NSSA area,
>>but only into the rest of the OSPF domain. I'm completely unaware
>>of the relevance of virtual links in this scenario.
>>
>>Pete
>>
>
>I'm guessing the virtual link issue is a general question about
>NSSAs, rather than having anything to do with a specific topology. It
>is true that an area has to have transit capability to support VL's,
>so no type of stubby area will do so.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thnks for helps
>>>Omar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Peter van Oene <pvo@usermail.com>
>>>>Reply-To: Peter van Oene <pvo@usermail.com>
>>>>To: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>>>Subject: RE: NSSA
>>>>Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:33:24 -0500
>>>>
>>>>The below describes the situation where an ASBR happens to be an NSSA
ABR
>>>>at the same time. In this case, the desire is to bring externals into
>the
>>>>network on that router, yet not leak them into the NSSA area. The
>>>>no-redistribution command accomplishes that nicely.
>>>>
>>>>However, I think the original poster was looking more for how to
restrict
>>>>the Type 7 to Type 5 conversion that the NSSA ABR will perform by
>>>>default. In this case, adding a summary address with the not-advertise
>>>>option for the prefixes you wish to restrict accomplishes this. The
>>>>following link is quite helpful in explaining both of these situations
in
>>>>some detail.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/104/nssa.html#2c
>>>>
>>>>Pete
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 01:30 PM 1/8/2002 -0800, Jeongwoo Park wrote:
>>>>>Make ASBR into ABR by doing
>>>>>router ospf 1
>>>>> area 1 nssa no-redistribution
>>>>>This way, there will be no type 7 generated
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Christian C. Aguillo [mailto:chris_aguillo@alfalak.com]
>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:46 AM
>>>>>To: GroupStudy
>>>>>Subject: NSSA
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi Friends,
>>>>>
>>>>>How can I inject external routes to OSPF via NSSA ASBR wihtout
>>>>>conversion of
>>>>>the LSA-7 to LSA-5.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks and cheers....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:22 GMT-3