From: Michael Snyder (msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com)
Date: Thu Feb 05 2004 - 12:55:01 GMT-3
So in the lab we should give them the idealized answer and not the real
answer as posted by cisco.
Reminds me of the root spanning-tree issue. That little macro they want
you to use doesn't override a hand coded spanning-tree value of 0 on
another switch (or close to zero); Yet the idealized answer for the lab
is probably using the spt macro.
What a life.
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Tahsin Hersan [mailto:tahsin.hersan@equant.com.tr]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:41 AM
To: msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com
Subject: RE: CBWFQ & FR Question
Oh, sorry :-P
I just realised that you're talking about the "configuration notes" at
the
end.
You're right. It is complicated! I think we should not consider it.
We should use most basic way to accomplish what they ask in exam
Tahsin
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Snyder
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 3:25 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Cc: 'K. Tahsin Hersan'
Subject: RE: CBWFQ & FR Question
After posting my message, I came to the conclusion not to follow the
configuration note posted on the cco page. Mainly because it would just
add another layer of complexity to what I already know.
But here's the rub, at what level am I not responsible of knowing
special cases? Am I supposed to know the some subjects to the nth
degree but idealize others because it messes up my numbers?
BTW, that config note is at the bottom of the example. So, it's ok to
read and apply the first half of the example, but not the second half?
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/cbwfq_frpvs.html
I'm not expecting an answer, just pointing out how frustrating it is to
be a ccie candidate.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 05 2004 - 07:13:46 GMT-3