From: Michael Graham (migraham@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 08:53:44 GMT-3
There's only one way to prove you're up to CCIE lab level, and that's not by
promoting yourself as an honorary CCIE :o)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Mark Lewis
Sent: 10 January 2002 00:16
To: brian@5g.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: OT: Honorary CCIE's
Yep, I'll have to second that!
I've known some really good CCSIs and some really bad ones. Some people I
have met (CCSIs and otherwise) have claimed to be 'CCIE level'. These people
have NO idea what the CCIE lab exam is like. There is only group of people
who are CCIE level and that is CCIEs themselves!
As to 'honourary' CCIEs - what a laugh!
Mark Lewis
CCIE#6280 (R&S) / CCSI#21051 / JNCIS
>From: "Brian Dennis" <brian@5g.net>
>Reply-To: "Brian Dennis" <brian@5g.net>
>To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: OT: Honorary CCIE's
>Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:22:10 -0800
>
>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