From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@gettcomm.com)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 13:32:40 GMT-3
RIP is out there, but increasingly as a signaling rather than a
routing protocol, for such things as router location. Passive RIP is
very common in UNIX environments, but all that needs to get
advertised is the default route.
At 1:42 PM -0500 11/20/02, Chuck Church wrote:
>True, there's not enough RIP in the real world to warrent it that much in
>the lab, but I think Cisco has it there because it's a pain. If the lab was
>just the well-behaved VLSM protocols, they'd need 15 routers or more per pod
>to make a CCIE-level exam.
Hmmm...well-behaved? I can, with 4-5 routers or so, set up truly
ugly multihoming scenarios that include knowing when to advertise and
not advertise prefixes of varying specificity, inconsistent AS (used
for valid reasons), private AS stripping, various aggregation
techniques, etc.
It's long been my position, however, that CCIE-level BGP is an
especially horrible example of the lab not reflecting best current
practices. I suspect that someone that had a CCIE but learned BGP
only through the traditional Cisco courses would drown quickly in an
ISP of any complexity.
>It's just not practical.
Not necessarily in the pod. Picture them setting up a
proctor-controlled router, such as a 7200 with the fastest NPE and
max memory, with multiple OSPF processes and separate address spaces
for each pod. You should be able to develop scenarios that require
the candidate to interconnect with that router or system of routers,
yet have adequate filters, etc., to protect against crashing the
router.
The same, even more so, is true of BGP. In this case, you'd probably
want to use UNIX-based simulators as well as routers, so you can have
multiple AS on the same box, and also generate malformed BGP
announcements.
>Maybe in the future
>they'll add things like multicast and unicast traffic generators, so you can
>fine tune things like in the real world.
>
>Chuck Church
>CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Logan, Harold" <loganh@mccfl.edu>
>To: "Chuck Church" <cchurch@optonline.net>; "John Underhill"
><steppenwolfe_2000@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 11:24 AM
>Subject: RE: Core subjects
>
>
>> I understand, and agree that RIP is important to know. But I don't agree
>that VLSM/FLSM issues are common enough to warrant the emphasis that they've
>been given in the lab in the past. I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm jut
>saying that the scarcity of routers that only support rip1 make it less of
>an issue that it once was.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hal
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Chuck Church [mailto:cchurch@optonline.net]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:59 PM
>> > To: Logan, Harold; John Underhill; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> > Subject: Re: Core subjects
>> >
>> >
>> > Hal,
>> >
>> > RIP is important for a CCIE to know. Sure, no one's
>> > deploying it now,
>> > but there's lots of RIP networks out there. If a CCIE didn't
>> > know how to
>> > deal with FLSM/VLSM issues, they're going to look pretty
>> > silly when you try
>> > to migrate to OSPF, and the whole network dies. Cisco want's
>> > CCIEs to be
>> > able to handle anything, not just stuff that makes sense.
>> >
>> > Chuck Church
>> > CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Logan, Harold" <loganh@mccfl.edu>
>> > To: "Chuck Church" <cchurch@optonline.net>; "John Underhill"
>> > <steppenwolfe_2000@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:07 PM
>> > Subject: RE: Core subjects
>> >
>> >
>> > > I agree with adding RIP, but this is something I'm a little
>> > annoyed about.
>> > I know that classful-to-classless redistribution is something
>> > the IE loves
>> > to hammer, and that's great'n all, but the techniques for
>> > dealing with it
>> > are documented enough now that it isn't the headache it once
>> > was. I'm all
>> > for Cisco removing IGRP from the lab, but I really don't see
>> > the need to
>> > test classful/classless redistribution either. I mean, you
> > > have to look
>> > pretty hard to find a router that doesn't support ripv2...
>> > even the dinky
>> > little linksys routers will run version 2. I like the fact
>> > that they're
>> > challenging us with mroe current technology rather than
>> > dinosaurs of routing
>> > protocols, I just hope they didn't go through all the labs
>> > and do a find and
>> > replace job to substitute ripv1 for igrp.
>> > >
>> > > </.02>
>> > >
>> > > Hal
>> > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: Chuck Church [mailto:cchurch@optonline.net]
>> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:18 PM
>> > > > To: John Underhill; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> > > > Subject: Re: Core subjects
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > John,
>> > > >
>> > > > If you've got the Caslow book, it breaks the topics into
>> > > > 3 levels. Your
>> > > > list looks about right, but I'd add RIP. With IGRP gone,
>> > > > they're going to
>> > > > focus more on RIP and it's 'quirks' when combined with VLSM
>> > > > protocols. I'd
>> > > > take IPX off the core list. It's not even distribution or
>> > > > access layer at
>> > > > this point :) If you've played around with a 3550 or 2950
>> > > > yet, you'd know
>> > > > there's a boat-load of QOS that they can do. Might add QOS
>> > > > to the list to.
>> > > > With LANE gone, ATM is pretty much just a WAN protocol,
>> > > > pretty simple to
>> > > > learn. Again, the Caslow/Pavlichenko book covers it well enough.
>> > > >
>> > > > Chuck Church
>> > > > CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > From: "John Underhill" <steppenwolfe_2000@yahoo.com>
>> > > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:06 AM
>> > > > Subject: Core subjects
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > While reading through the posts yesterday, I noticed
>> > > > > several people made reference to 'having the core down
>> > > > > cold', and it occured to me.. what should I now
>> > > > > consider the core? When I started studying for the lab
>> > > > > about a year ago, the core was generally considered to
>> > > > > be BGP, EIGRP, OSPF, IPX, ISDN, Frame, Bridging,
>> > > > > Multicasting, and Switching. Can I still consider this
>> > > > > to be true? Is ATM now considered a core subject, what
>> > > > > about voice or IPSec? I mean, obviously these are
>> > > > > subjects that one has to have a good working knowledge
>> > > > > of, but should they now be considered to hold the same
>> > > > > weight as the aforementioned subjects? Anyone out
>> > > > > there willing to offer some reasonable advice as to
>> > > > > the 'must know' subjects for the lab?
> > > > > > Thanks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 07:23:08 GMT-3