From: Brad Ellis (bellis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 17:01:40 GMT-3
I have not heard anything either way from them, so I dont really know how to
respond. I would have to assume that they DO plan to make the configs
available sometime (hopefully). I will email Pearson today and pester them
some more. If I hear anything back, I'll post the info on the lablist.
Worst case, maybe a few people can do the labs, and we can compare the
results and I'll add a link for the configs to my review.
thanks,
-Brad Ellis
CCIE#5796 (R&S / Security)
Network Learning Inc
bellis@ccbootcamp.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Ezerski" <jezerski@broadcom.com>
To: "'Brad Ellis'" <bellis@ccbootcamp.com>; "'Baiao, Nuno'"
<Nuno.Baiao@kpmg.co.uk>; "'R. Benjamin Kessler'"
<ben@kesslerconsulting.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: CCIE Practical Studies book by Solie WAS Re: OT: Honorary CIE's
> Brad:
>
> Are you saying that they have no intentions to release the lab configs
ever?
>
> If that is so, I am highly disapointed.
>
> -Joe
>
> PS- I read your review and appreciated the honesty.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Brad Ellis
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:45 AM
> To: Baiao, Nuno; 'R. Benjamin Kessler'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: CCIE Practical Studies book by Solie WAS Re: OT: Honorary CIE's
>
>
> I think the book is okay, you can read my review at:
>
> http://www.optsys.net/review.htm
>
> (also, at the bottom of the review there are links where you can purchase
> the book)
>
> One of the main problems of the book is that they have decided not to
> release the configs (solutions) for the 5 labs at the end of the book. I
> believe they did that to get discussions going about the labs and help
> promote the book, however it appears that they are upsetting a few people,
> in the process of using this marketing method.
>
> thanks,
> -Brad Ellis
> CCIE#5796 (R&S / Security)
> Network Learning Inc
> bellis@ccbootcamp.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Baiao, Nuno" <Nuno.Baiao@kpmg.co.uk>
> To: "'R. Benjamin Kessler'" <ben@kesslerconsulting.com>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:00 AM
> Subject: RE: OT: Honorary CIE's
>
>
> > They already started doing the "official" CCIE curriculum that is what
the
> > new CCIE practical book is. What do you guys think about that book?
Don't
> > you think that in the long run will put in jeopardy the reputation of
the
> > CCIE Certification?
> >
> > Best compliments,
> >
> > Nuno Baico
> > > Network Engineer Consultant
> > > KPMG Consulting
> > > KPMG Cisco Service Provider
> > > 6 The Square, Stockley Park, Uxbridge UB11 1JR United Kingdom
> > mobile: +44 7950 917 478
> > fax: +44 20 7694 3410
> > email: nuno.baiao@kpmg.co.uk
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: R. Benjamin Kessler [mailto:ben@kesslerconsulting.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:37 PM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: OT: Honorary CCIE's
> >
> >
> > I'm not stepping into the middle of this flame-war; Howard is a big boy
> and
> > is certainly capable of defending himself.
> >
> > That said, I have had some conversations with some people (non-Cisco,
who
> > shall remain anonymous) that have prepared some (highly-regarded) CCIE
> prep
> > materials. They indicated that there is a constant struggle against
Cisco
> > to prove that they're not breaking NDA and that Cisco has more than
hinted
> > about creating an "official" CCIE curriculum to put these people out of
> > business.
> >
> > I'm sure that the "official" Cisco party line would be different; but I
> > found it interesting none the less.
> >
> > You may now return to your regularly-scheduled flame-war.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > Howard C. Berkowitz
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:41 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....
> > Email Disclaimer
> >
> > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> privileged.
> > It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone
> else
> > is unauthorised.
> > If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
> distribution
> > or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
> prohibited
> > and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or
advice
> > contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions
expressed
> in
> > the governing KPMG client engagement letter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:23 GMT-3