From: Ludwig Morales (morales_l@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 02:04:33 GMT-3
Hi!
Why dont we earn some money out of this discusion and put this two guys
(Brian and Howard) with boxing gloves on a ring maybe that'll help some of
us pay for the expensives home labs and who knows we might even learn a few
new moves like the chest RIP-Ping claw, or the Beast's Guts Punishment
(BGP).
Enough nonsense, can anyone anwer my original question en tell me what does
it take to be a CCSI?
Thanks
Make love not war (well not among you guys!)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Dennis" <brian@5g.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:43 AM
Subject: RE: OT: Honorary CCIE's
> Howard,
> Please give it a break. All I did was ask you when your lab date was. How
is
> that being a troll? I assumed that since this list is for people who are
> CCIE's or pursuing their CCIE that you must be trying to get your CCIE.
> You're the one that came back with that line that you can't get the CCIE
due
> to NDA reasons. That did get under my skin along with many other people
that
> e-mailed me privately thanking me for calling you on the carpet for it.
>
> I hate to tell you but the CCIE certification isn't about who you know,
what
> book you wrote or how well you can draw puffy clouds in Visio. The CCIE is
> about paying your dues studying, working on routers and sacrificing your
> time to obtain the certification. So don't come in here throwing around
> names and tooting your horn all while hiding behind that lame NDA excuse
for
> not taking the CCIE lab. That kind of stuff my fool the CCNA folks on the
> cisco mailing list but it's not going to fool most of the people on this
> list.
>
> 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 7:41 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: OT: Honorary CCIE's
>
>
> Let me remind the list that the challenges from Brian came were not
> in response to anything I was saying about CCIE qualifications or
> not, but to a technical response to a technical question about NSSAs.
> I would like this thread to return to a technical theme that is
> generally useful, but I'm afraid that a few things that Mr. Dennis
> has said are over the line.
>
> >Howard,
> >Kind of hypocritical of you to say I misquoted you and then you go
misquote
> >me don't you think? I didn't say that someone like Vint Cerf couldn't
> >network and you know that. I said that there is CCSI's out there that
can't
> >network their way out of a paper bag. A CCSI no matter how long they've
> been
> >a CCSI doesn't make them a CCIE.
>
> I don't know what you know about my background. It's a good deal more
> than a CCSI alone. Yes, I agree there are CCSIs that can't network
> their way out of a paper bag. I never claimed that my CCSI exposure
> alone defined my skill set.
>
> >
> >If you're so comfortable with your knowledge, why don't you just go take
> the
> >actual CCIE lab? Don't say it's because of the NDA. I develop/teach CCIE
> >prep courses and I'm not afraid of the NDA. I get 100% of my ideas from
> >http://www.cisco.com. You should be able to develop material without
having
> >to break the NDA. If breaking the NDA is an issue then maybe you
shouldn't
> >be developing Cisco certification material to begin with. Sounds to me
like
> you're using it as an excuse.
>
> I will simply say that I've had enough direct experience with Cisco
> attorneys that I play carefully by IPR rules.
>
> >
> >As far as proving something goes, if you want to "play" in this CCIE
> >certification world then you do have something to prove and it's called
the
> >CCIE lab. If you ever want to step up to the plate just let me know. I'll
> >pay for CCIE lab.
> >
> >Lastly and please don't take this the wrong way but I do know who those
> >people are and you don't belong in the same category.
>
> Check the advisory council of the Wiley Networking Series, which
> consists of Vint Cerf, Scott Bradner, and Lyman Chapin. Feel free to
> ask any of them about me, especially Scott Bradner, who was the
> technical advisor and reviewer for my Wiley book, "WAN Survival
> Guide," and with whom I'm also involved in IETF benchmarking
> development. Verify any of this with Carol Long at Wiley, or directly
> with these people.
>
> I am a current coauthor of the Future Domain Routing requirements in
> the IETF, as well as four other current Internet Drafts, and am sole
> or coauthor of 3 other RFCs. In particular, look at my standards
> track work on BGP conformance, with coauthors including Alvaro Retana
> of Cisco, Marianne Lepp of Juniper, and Sue Hares of Nexthop (who is
> co-chair, with Yakov, of the IDR Working Group that develops BGP). I
> was a peer reviewer for Jeff Doyle (and he for me), and for John
> Moy's OSPF book.
>
>
> >You may be able to
> >fool some folks by telling them you belong in the same category but
you're
> >not going to fool everyone. Actually I think it's kind of "big" of you to
> >put YOURSELF in the same category as those people.
>
> As I say, ask any of the people. Check my publications and
> presentations in the IETF, NANOG, ARIN, and elsewhere. Funny...your
> name doesn't seem to show up in any of these contexts.
>
> >Well I guess it's not
> >much of a stretch seeing are you're a honorary CCIE and all. ;-) Sorry I
> >couldn't let that one slide.
>
> And I guess it's not much of a stretch given that you are a troll.
>
> >
> >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 4:19 PM
> >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Re: OT: Honorary CCIE's
> >
> >
> >>Howard,
> >>How many other "honorary" CCIEs are there besides you? ;-)
> >
> >
> >Brian,
> >
> >I'm finding that I'm being misquoted, and I don't find it very funny.
> >I did not call myself an honorary CCIE. What I actually said was that
> >before the CCIE program, and before there were training partners
> >(roughly pre-1995), Cisco had a limited number of CCSIs. Most of
> >these were Cisco employees. The qualification procedure was NOT for
> >ICND, which didn't exist at the time.
> >
> >I'm not the only individual to go back to this time frame, who has
> >NEVER called themselves an honorary CCIE but has not felt any driving
> >need to prove a point by having one. I think Priscilla Oppenheimer
> >can make some comments in this area as well.
> >
> >Not on this list, but people I can think of who are not CCIEs,
> >include Tony Li, Yakov Rekhter, Dave Katz, JJ Garcia-Luna-Alceves,
> >Randy Bush, Andrew Partan, Radia Perlman, Paul Ferguson, Vint Cerf,
> >Scott Bradner, Frank Kastenholz, Karl Auerbach, Sue Hares, Sean
> >Doran, and many others. Do you know who they are? Do they know who
> >you are? Are you saying they don't know how to network?
> >
> >>I do a lot of
> >>work in the security area and teach/develop CCIE prep courses which
cover
> >>security topics 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. This is usually how if works.
> >>
> >>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
> >
> >The _current_ ICND. Indeed, I contributed content to or was on the
> >internal review team for, a fair number of Cisco courses.
> >
> >>. 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.
> >
> >And I know many CCIEs who couldn't design a really large network. So
what?
> >
> >>
> >>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 screwed up to me.
> >
> >Someone who thinks this isn't a problem has not had to deal with
> >Cisco's intellectual property attorneys. I don't propose to get into
> >the details of this, but I think Paul Borghese, among others, can
> >testify there are significant sensitivities.
> >
> >>
> >>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