From: Nick Shah (nshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 00:48:58 GMT-3
yes its a rollover cable.
Just remember that you can have only one end dial to the other end. (since
one end will be in host mode and the other in dialout). I use it to practise
quite a few scenarios. Let me know if u run into probs or need a hand in
config.
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnny Peterson" <johnny@virtualrack.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:05 PM
Subject: RE: CCIE #9240 -Back OT
> To get this thread back on topic. I have a question.
>
> When connecting 2 routers via their respective AUX ports to practice DDR,
> what cable is used? Is it a rollover cable?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Johnny Peterson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Sanjay Prajapati
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 9:49 PM
> To: 'Zhang, Stan'; 'Church, Chuck '
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: CCIE #9240 - Pretty OT at this point.
>
>
> AYE!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Zhang, Stan
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:16 PM
> To: 'Church, Chuck '
> Cc: ''ccielab@groupstudy.com' '
> Subject: RE: CCIE #9240 - Pretty OT at this point.
>
>
> Chuck is our man!! Let kill the thread. All those agree please reply to
> this thread and say "AYE".
>
>
> SZ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Church, Chuck
> Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Sent: 4/30/02 9:55 PM
> Subject: CCIE #9240 - Pretty OT at this point.
>
> Can't we all just get along?
>
> We've gone through this thread before. The CCIE lab has
> definitely
> changed over the last 5 years, but I don't think anyone can make a call
> as
> to when it was most difficult. In the old days, it was more of a
> research
> project. There was no information on it. Just lots of rumors. As info
> and
> study guides/practice labs came out, Cisco made it tougher by cramming
> more
> in, making time a bigger issue. Does that make one harder than the
> other?
> The passing rate is still in the 10-15% range, so I think it's still
> adequately difficult. But then again, who cares? With the dollars and
> responsibility involved in hiring a network engineer, you can bet a
> company
> will look hard at one's resume, and ask several hours of tough
> questions.
> Those who don't have what it takes either won't be hired, or will be the
> first to be let go. Just don't ever stop learning, that's what I say.
>
> Chuck Church
> CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
> Sr. Network Engineer
> US Tennis Association
> 70 W. Red Oak Lane
> White Plains, NY 10604
> 914-696-7199
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Mingzhou Nie
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:58 PM
> To: dmadlan@qwest.com
> Cc: Sean Wu; 'Peter Rosenthal'; thomas larus; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: CCIE #9240
>
>
> You are wrong, Dave. When I say "won't ever thing earlier CCIEs are
> better technically", I have no intention to disdain old takers, I
> simply counter Sean's point that older CCIEs are more admirable in
> terms of indepent studying.
>
> Is a CCIE 9200 superior to CCIE20000? No way. Just because there's more
> ways to discuss and practice doesn't challenge a CCIE's accountibilty.
> I'm certainly ignorant at some point because I'm not a perfect man.
> However, being an OLDER CCIE, you simply take my words personal and
> distorted my original thought. You are ignorant in my opinion, thought
> you are a CCIE.
>
> Don't take it personal, Dave. You are welcome to debate with me. Let's
> take if offline if you will.
>
>
> --- MADMAN <dmadlan@qwest.com> wrote:
> >
> > I thought better for a moment than to even respond to your email
> > but I
> > think you may be missing a clue.
> >
> > I'm one of the 1996 test takers. Yes you are correct, there was no
> > voice, QOS, switches nor several of the knobs available now. In 5
> > years
> > from now there will be new technologies that people will be learning,
> > does this mean people who are currently passing will be the
> > equivalent
> > to your view of the "1996/97" CCIE's?
> >
> > What else has changed Mingzhou? There was no Cisco press, CCNA,
> > CCNP,
> > CCXX..., no bootcamps, no world wide mail lists brimming with NDA
> > info,
> > no virtual labs etc. You learned by working on networks and studing
> > based on the little info available concerning the lab and when you
> > felt
> > up to it you went to San Jose.
> >
> > So do you suppose those who took the test then fell off the face of
> > the earth or what?? Who do think helped test, implement,
> > troubleshoot,
> > teach etc. the new technologies that are currently being tested???
> >
> > BTW, I don't think most of the "old" CCIE's give a damn what you
> > think
> > of us technically anyway but thanks for sharing your ignorance.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > Mingzhou Nie wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't agree, Sean. Do you know what had been tested in 1996/7.
> > > There's no voice, not Qos, no new techs that has since been added.
> > I
> > > won't ever thing earlier CCIEs are better technically.
> > >
> > > --- Sean Wu <vpivci@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Peter, I agree with you in that experience is important to this
> > > > field,
> > > > and most network managers tend to think in the same way. But what
> > > > about
> > > > the quality of experience, in my mind, 2 years' experience with
> > > > intensive cisco hands-on is much more valuable than 5 years'
> > first
> > > > level
> > > > network support.
> > > >
> >
> > David Madland
> > Sr. Network Engineer
> > CCIE# 2016
> > Qwest Communications Int. Inc.
> > dave@interprise.com
> > 612-664-3367
> >
> > "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it"
>
>
> =====
> - | |
> :|||: :|||:
> :|||||||: :|||||||:
> .:|||||||||||:.:|||||||||||:.
> C i s c o S y s t e m s
> www.cisco.com/tac
> Empowering the Internet Generation
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:47 GMT-3