From: Murphy, William (William.Murphy@uth.tmc.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 11:58:13 ART
Thanks Brian,
Just checked the edited doc and it looks good. My compliments to you
and your team... I think you have put together some fine CCIE
preparation materials...
Bill Murphy
Senior Network Analyst
University of Texas Health Science Center - Houston
6901 Bertner, Suite 432
Houston, TX 77030
Office: (713) 500-9947
Fax: (713) 500-0272
Mobile: (832) 594-0136
IM Addresses:
MSN: bill@wemurphy.com
AIM/Yahoo: billm77479
ICQ: 322776291
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Dennis [mailto:bdennis@internetworkexpert.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 6:22 PM
To: Murphy, William
Cc: Steven Hodgson; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Newb question about IEWB topology and labs
Bill,
In my reply last night I mentioned that I edited these to remove
any
confusion in regards to the topology needed and uploaded the new version
to the members' site. So you're all set! ;-)
--Brian Dennis, CCIE4 #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/SP) bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc. http://www.InternetworkExpert.com Toll Free: 877.224.8987 Direct: +1.775.852.3995 (Outside the US and Canada)
Murphy, William wrote: > There is a mistake in the lab... I think Steve noticed the same thing I > did... > > I refer you to "Understanding Layer 2 Access Switchports" on page 2 of > the Vol 1 Bridging & Switching lab. The diagram clearly shows that R1 > and R2 are directly connected to SW1 when in fact they are not. I am > using IE racks to do my work so I assume the rack should match the docs. > I am also using the electronic version of the material so I am not sure > if those docs have an issue while the printed material does not... > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Dennis [mailto:bdennis@internetworkexpert.com] > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 2:43 PM > To: Murphy, William > Cc: Steven Hodgson; ccielab@groupstudy.com > Subject: Re: Newb question about IEWB topology and labs > > Bill, > Some of the labs were originally written when the interfaces in > R1 or > R2 were standard Ethernet and now they are upgraded to FastEthernet. > This shouldn't be a problem since the only difference is the command > "int f0/0" as opposed to "int e0/0". If you feel it does make a big > difference in a lab let me know off line and I'll see about getting you > a copy that has e0/0 on R1 and R2 replaced with fa0/0.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:19 ART