From: Marius Venter (marius@aict.co.za)
Date: Fri May 05 2006 - 03:31:26 ART
Sorry my man.
You say you came close and I do believe your question was answered in
previous posts.
I picked up on something you posted.
I do believe that you read too much into the question.
If they did not specify anything about the other switch you should have
perhaps ignored it.
I am not referring to this actual section but if you applied this logic here
I most certainly think you applied this logic in the more complex sections
as well.
You might have just complicated your lab to the point where it became
impassable.
This is what I learned from my first attempt.
Do what they say, meet the requirements and if you are not sure ask the
proctor.
I will be tested on this basis very soon.
I hope I can practice what I preach :)
PS. Just don't give up
Marius Venter
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Popgeorgiev Nikolay
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 7:55 AM
To: Vinu; Cisco certification
Subject: RE: attempted my lab on may 1st ..... n flunked...
Sorry to hear you didn't pass.
About your question, port-priority is carried in the BPDUs coming from the
root switch. So in order to change the blocked port on the non-root
back-to-back connected switch - then change it on the root.
Best,
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Vinu [mailto:vinupeter@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 4:34 AM
To: Cisco certification
Subject: attempted my lab on may 1st ..... n flunked...
guys i attemted my labs on 1st may .... it was apretty good
experience... i thought i would have cleared it but unfortunatly i
didn't
just few doubts that came to me...
in case vlan load balancing and if port cost is not supposed to be
used... can we give priority on both ends ? just to ensure if root
changes the preferences stays the same....
--
Regards,
Vinu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:20 ART