From: Wayne Lewis (lewisway@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 03:57:06 GMT-3
Interesting thread for once. Networking gurus like Partridge don't nee
d
the CCIE to be where they're at - I think that, if nothing else, this thread
is good in that it points out to some that may not be aware: most of the top
networking experts in the world don't bother with the CCIE because it has no
relevance to their work (developing protocols, standards, etc.). CCIE
measures skill; scientific expertise measures ingenuity (not to mention
diligence, stubborness, passion, creativity, motivation, focus, soul, etc.).
I'm going for the CCIE, as I'm not in a position intellectually or
career-wise to follow in the footsteps of Perlman or Dijkstra or Abrahamson.
However, I look up to these kind of experts way more than I do to any CCIE.
They invented the stuff, and we're learning how to configure routers that
support the stuff they've invented.
Thanks,
Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Brian Dennis
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:44 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
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