From: Geert Nijs (geert.nijs@simac.be)
Date: Sat Jul 31 2004 - 06:21:13 GMT-3
Please take this discussion off-line and change the subject, because i DON'T LIKE that this discussion is made under my CCIE number.....
Enough.
Lets concentrate on what this forum is really for: discussing technical questions, like for example the following one, which i posted recently, but haven't received any answers yet:
* When configuring "dialer load-threshold" on a PHYSICAL BRI0/0 interface, what bandwidth does this reference to ??
The physical interface bandwidth or one B-channel bandwidth ?
I have noticed that the default bandwidth of "int BRI0/0" AND "int BRI0/0:1" AND "int BRI0/0:2" are all 64 kbps.
1) MUST we specify "bandwidth 128" under "int bri0/0" ? (i think i have read this somewhere in Packet Magazine0)
Isn't this a better representation of the real available bandwidth ? (like when you are running ospf over it)
This statement leaves the bandwidth on the B-channels to 64 kbps, i have verified that.
2) If "bandwidth 128" is specified under the physical interface, does this influence the "dialer load-threshold"
calculation ??? Or when a connection is made is this calculation based
under the load of the B-channel (BRI0/0:1 or 2). If so, how do i
change the bandwidth of a B-channel, if at all possible ?
Geert
CCIE #13729
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] Namens Richard Dumoulin
Verzonden: zaterdag 31 juli 2004 1:18
Aan: James
CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Onderwerp: RE: CCIE #13729
James,
While unsolicited (just kidding) I do appreciate the lesson in sales. You're
obviously well versed in it and you convinced me. What I do not appreciate
so much is seeing how people "publicly" ruin John's reputation instead of
unicasting him an e-mail,
--Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: James [mailto:james@towardex.com]
Sent: viernes, 30 de julio de 2004 23:33
To: Richard Dumoulin
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: CCIE #13729
Richard,
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:13:22PM +0100, Richard Dumoulin wrote:
> Here everyone advertises so why not John ? When someone posts a question
> related to his product and the vendor answers he is indirectly
> advertising too. I have not seen you complain,
There is a difference between "opt-in" and "unsolicited" advertisement.
A good sales person will follow a good net etique when it comes to selling
products & services via a mailing list such as:
o Not sending unsolicited commercial oriented advertisements to broadcast
list.
o Unicasting "opt-in" requested indirect advertisements/replies to the
requestor via off-list method in private; unless of course many number of
people have requested it, in which a broadcast to public mailing list may
help, dependent on list's AUP policies.
o Understand that people in general do not appreciate cold calls whether
the
intent is to help or sell especially when it is unsolicited sales pitch.
In such case, unicast off-list email is a better judgement.
And no, I am not saying John is a bad sales person, nor am I publicly
denouncing his name on purpose. This is all common sense to net sales.
People from time to time make mistakes, and from time to time are not aware
of best common practices out there to conduct a task (including myself
definately, don't get me wrong).
It is not a problem in general so long as they realize the inconvenience and
improve upon the realization.
-J
>
> --Richard
>
-- James Jun TowardEX Technologies, Inc. Technical Lead Network Design, Consulting, IT Outsourcing james@towardex.com Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth Services cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:12:07 GMT-3