From: paul cosgrove (paul.cosgrove@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Dec 02 2008 - 10:28:36 ARST
Hi Howard,
It looks like you have proved the answer to a question which has been asked
frequently on the web, but has remained largely a matter of speculation.
You should be proud of that.
So the maximum EIGRP network width on IP networks is 255 routers (i.e. 254
links), or 100 routers if the default 'metric maximum-hops' settings is
used. The maximum limit of 224 which some docs refer to appears to be
specific to IPX networks only.
Thanks again,
Paul.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Howard Hooper
<Howard.Hooper@dupre.co.uk>wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I apologize for sending incorrect information, this is my fault for rushing
> through this yesterday and not checking everything properly.
>
> After changing the 'metric maximum-hops' value on the receiving router to
> 255 a route sent with a hopcount of 254 is installed into the routing table
> as shown below;
>
> !
>
> Routing Protocol is "eigrp 1"
>
> Outgoing update filter list for all interfaces is not set
>
> Incoming update filter list for all interfaces is not set
>
> Default networks flagged in outgoing updates
>
> Default networks accepted from incoming updates
>
> EIGRP metric weight K1=1, K2=0, K3=1, K4=0, K5=0
>
> EIGRP maximum hopcount 255
>
> !
>
> !
>
> 15w2d: EIGRP: Received UPDATE on Vlan11 nbr 192.168.2.63
>
> 15w2d: AS 1, Flags 0x0, Seq 0/0 idbQ 0/0 iidbQ un/rely 0/0 peerQ un/rely
> 0/0
>
> 15w2d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Processing incoming UPDATE
> packet
>
> 15w2d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Ext 192.168.67.201/32 M 2916
> - 2560
>
> 356 SM 612 - 512 100
>
> 15w2d: DUAL: rcvupdate: 192.168.67.201/32 via 192.168.2.63 metric 2916/612
>
> 15w2d: DUAL: Find FS for dest 192.168.67.201/32. FD is 2916, RD is 2916
>
> 15w2d: DUAL: 192.168.2.63 metric 2916/612 found Dmin is 2916
>
> 15w2d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): route installed for
> 192.168.67.201
>
> ()
>
> 15w2d: DUAL: RT installed 192.168.67.201/32 via 192.168.2.63
>
> !
>
> !
>
> Router1#sh ip eigrp top 192.168.67.201 255.255.255.255
>
> IP-EIGRP (AS 1): Topology entry for 192.168.67.201/32
>
> State is Passive, Query origin flag is 1, 1 Successor(s), FD is 2916
>
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>
> 192.168.2.63 (Vlan11), from 192.168.2.63, Send flag is 0x0
>
> Composite metric is (2916/612), Route is External
>
> Vector metric:
>
> Minimum bandwidth is 1000000 Kbit
>
> Total delay is 13 microseconds
>
> Reliability is 255/255
>
> Load is 1/255
>
> Minimum MTU is 1500
>
> Hop count is 255
>
> External data:
>
> Originating router is 192.168.2.63
>
> AS number of route is 1
>
> External protocol is BGP, external metric is 0
>
> Administrator tag is 0 (0x00000000)
>
>
>
> A route with a received hopcount of 255 is not;
>
>
>
> 15w2d: EIGRP: Received UPDATE on Vlan11 nbr 192.168.2.63
>
> 15w2d: AS 1, Flags 0x0, Seq 0/0 idbQ 0/0 iidbQ un/rely 0/0 peerQ un/rely
> 0/0
>
> 15w2d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Processing incoming UPDATE
> packet
>
> 15w2d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Int 192.168.69.201/32 M
> 4294967295
>
> - 512 4294967295 SM 4294967295 - 512 100
>
>
>
> As Paul mentioned below the default max hopcount is set to 100 so by
> default a route received with a hop count of 99 is installed into the
> routing table but anything > 100 is not;
>
> !
>
> Routing Protocol is "eigrp 1"
>
> Outgoing update filter list for all interfaces is not set
>
> Incoming update filter list for all interfaces is not set
>
> Default networks flagged in outgoing updates
>
> Default networks accepted from incoming updates
>
> EIGRP metric weight K1=1, K2=0, K3=1, K4=0, K5=0
>
> EIGRP maximum hopcount 100
>
> EIGRP maximum metric variance 1
>
> !
>
> ! Received route with hopcount of 99 !
>
> !
>
> 15w2d: EIGRP: Received UPDATE on Vlan11 nbr 192.168.2.63
>
> 15w2d: AS 1, Flags 0x0, Seq 0/0 idbQ 0/0 iidbQ un/rely 0/0 peerQ un/rely
> 0/0
>
> 15w2d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Processing incoming UPDATE
> packet
>
> 15w2d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Int 192.168.67.201/32 M 2916
> - 2560
>
> 356 SM 612 - 512 100
>
> 15w2d: DUAL: dest(192.168.67.201/32) not active
>
> 15w2d: DUAL: rcvupdate: 192.168.67.201/32 via 192.168.2.63 metric 2916/612
>
> 15w2d: DUAL: Find FS for dest 192.168.67.201/32. FD is 4294967295, RD is
> 4294967
>
> 295 found
>
> 15w2d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): route installed for
> 192.168.67.201
>
> ()
>
> 15w2d: DUAL: RT installed 192.168.67.201/32 via 192.168.2.63
>
> 15w2d: DUAL: Send update about 192.168.67.201/32. Reason: metric chg
>
> 15w2d: DUAL: Send update about 192.168.67.201/32. Reason: new if
>
> 15w2d: EIGRP: Enqueueing UPDATE on Vlan11 iidbQ un/rely 0/1 serno 3-3
>
> !
>
> !
>
> Router#sh ip eigrp top 192.168.67.201 255.255.255.255
>
> IP-EIGRP (AS 1): Topology entry for 192.168.67.201/32
>
> State is Passive, Query origin flag is 1, 1 Successor(s), FD is 2916
>
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>
> 192.168.2.63 (Vlan11), from 192.168.2.63, Send flag is 0x0
>
> Composite metric is (2916/612), Route is Internal
>
> Vector metric:
>
> Minimum bandwidth is 1000000 Kbit
>
> Total delay is 13 microseconds
>
> Reliability is 255/255
>
> Load is 1/255
>
> Minimum MTU is 1500
>
> Hop count is 100
>
> !
>
> A route with a received hopcount of 100+ isn't installed;
>
> !
>
> 15w2d: EIGRP: Received UPDATE on Vlan11 nbr 192.168.2.63
>
> 15w2d: AS 1, Flags 0x0, Seq 0/0 idbQ 0/0 iidbQ un/rely 0/0 peerQ un/rely
> 0/0
>
> 15w2d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Processing incoming UPDATE
> packet
>
> 15w2d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Int 192.168.67.201/32 M
> 4294967295
>
> - 512 4294967295 SM 4294967295 - 512 100
>
>
>
> Sorry again, please let me know if you would like me to test anything else
> for this
>
>
>
> Howard
>
>
>
> *From:* paul cosgrove [mailto:paul.cosgrove@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 02 December 2008 02:23
> *To:* Howard Hooper
> *Cc:* Gary Duncanson; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: EIGRP Maximum-hop
>
>
>
> Hi Howard,
>
>
>
> That helps a lot, many thanks for checking. I suppose to completely close
> this off you could check that 223 is accepted (if you haven't already).
You
> might also confirm that you increased the eigrp metric maximum-hops to 255.
> The default is 100 according to the command reference.
>
>
>
> Paul.
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Howard Hooper <Howard.Hooper@dupre.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've found another link for the EIGRP packet generator listed under
> 'EIGRP Tools' here
> http://www.arhont.com/ViewPage7422.html?siteNodeId=3&languageId=1&conten
>
tId=-1<http://www.arhont.com/ViewPage7422.html?siteNodeId=3&languageId=1&cont
entId=-1>
>
> I carried out a few tests using dynamips on a linux machine connected to
> an external router, as soon as the neighbor relationship is up between
> them both I then used the packet generator to spoof update messages;
>
> The following is an output from the packet generator config file, I
> raised the 'Hop Count' to 224 as shown below, the output I received on
> the router is below also.
>
> !!!!!from config file!!!!!
> #Metric
> $k1="1";
> $k2="0";
> $k3="1";
> $k4="0";
> $k5="0";
> $holdtime="15";
> $mtu="1514";
> $hopcount="224"
> !
> !
> !!!!!!Output from router after receiving the Update message!!!!
> !
> 15w1d: EIGRP: Received UPDATE on Vlan11 nbr 192.168.2.63
> 15w1d: AS 1, Flags 0x0, Seq 0/0 idbQ 0/0 iidbQ un/rely 0/0 peerQ
> un/rely 0/0
> 15w1d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Processing incoming UPDATE
> packet
> 15w1d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Ext 192.168.67.201/32 M
> 4294967295
> - 512 4294967295 SM 4294967295 - 512 100
> !
> !!!! nothing in the topology table !!!!!
> IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(1)/ID(192.168.30.254)
>
> Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply,
> r - reply Status, s - sia Status
>
> P 192.168.2.0/23, 1 successors, FD is 2816
> via Connected, Vlan11
>
> I then changed the hop count to a lower value and re-sent the update,
> this time the router installed the route into it's routing table
>
> 15w1d: EIGRP: Received UPDATE on Vlan11 nbr 192.168.2.63
> 15w1d: AS 1, Flags 0x0, Seq 0/0 idbQ 0/0 iidbQ un/rely 0/0 peerQ
> un/rely 0/0
> 15w1d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Processing incoming UPDATE
> packet
> 15w1d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): Ext 192.168.67.201/32 M
> 2916 - 2560
> 356 SM 612 - 512 100
> 15w1d: DUAL: dest(192.168.67.201/32) not active
> 15w1d: DUAL: rcvupdate: 192.168.67.201/32 via 192.168.2.63 metric
> 2916/612
> 15w1d: DUAL: Find FS for dest 192.168.67.201/32. FD is 4294967295, RD is
> 4294967
> 295 found
> 15w1d: IP-EIGRP(Default-IP-Routing-Table:1): route installed for
> 192.168.67.201
> ()
> 15w1d: DUAL: RT installed 192.168.67.201/32 via 192.168.2.63
> 15w1d: DUAL: Send update about 192.168.67.201/32. Reason: metric chg
> 15w1d: DUAL: Send update about 192.168.67.201/32. Reason: new if
> 15w1d: EIGRP: Enqueueing UPDATE on Vlan11 iidbQ un/rely 0/1 serno 4-4
> !
> !!! Topology table !!!!
> P 192.168.2.0/23, 1 successors, FD is 2816
> via Connected, Vlan11
> P 192.168.67.201/32, 1 successors, FD is 2916
> via 192.168.2.63 (2916/612), Vlan11
>
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Howard
>
>
> ---Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>
> Gary Duncanson
> Sent: 01 December 2008 11:11
> To: paul cosgrove
> Cc: Scott M Vermillion; tim@1c-solutions.com; Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: EIGRP Maximum-hop
>
> Paul,
>
> All roads lead to dead link in Russia it seems apart from this link that
>
> offers a download of a couple of tar files..
>
> http://www.hacker-soft.net/Soft/Soft_2313.htm
>
>
> For those on the list interested in TLV and don't have Doyle rhyshaden
> has
> some good schmatics of the headers..
>
> http://www.rhyshaden.com/eigrp.htm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "paul cosgrove" <paul.cosgrove@gmail.com>
> To: "Scott M Vermillion" <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com>
> Cc: "Timothy Chin" <Tim@1c-solutions.com>; "Oleg Konovalov"
> <OKonovalov@delta.ge>; "Cisco certification" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 9:38 AM
> Subject: Re: EIGRP Maximum-hop
>
>
> > Sorry, that link is dead. Not sure where eigrp tools can be found
> now.
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:32 AM, paul cosgrove
> > <paul.cosgrove@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Scott,
> >>
> >> I was thinking of generating a packet as if it had passed over that
> >> number
> >> of hops, rather than using an actual network.
> >> You can get tools to do that kind of thing for most protocols and
> there
> >> is
> >> indeed one for eigrp:-
> >>
> >> http://www.hackingciscoexposed.com/tools/eigrp-tools.tar.gz
> >>
> >> Paul.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Scott M Vermillion <
> >> scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi again Paul!
> >>>
> >>> Hop count is actually carried in the EIGRP "IP Internal Routes TLV"
> and
> >>> the
> >>> "IP External Routes TLV" (Doyle Vol I is a great reference for this
> and
> >>> similar such topics). A router advertises a directly connected
> network
> >>> with
> >>> a hop count of zero and it's incremented from there by subsequent
> >>> routers
> >>> learning of that network. When a router receiving an update
> increments
> >>> hop
> >>> count and the resulting value exceeds the locally configured max-hop
> >>> value,
> >>> it will be marked unreachable with a delay of 0xFFFFFF. I don't
> believe
> >>> that any update is sent on regarding that route with a delay of
> >>> 0xFFFFFF -
> >>> I
> >>> believe this to be a completely local affair on a router-by-router
> >>> basis.
> >>> But I could be wrong on that last count. Semantics at that point
> >>> anyway.
> >>>
> >>> So I'd think that you'd either need a really big EIGRP network to
> test
> >>> what
> >>> the truly maximum implemented value might be or you'd need a means
> to
> >>> manipulate the "Hop Count" field in the TLV. I'm not aware that this
> can
> >>> be
> >>> manipulated in a route-map or any such thing...
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Scott
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >>> paul
> >>> cosgrove
> >>> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:29 PM
> >>> To: Timothy Chin
> >>> Cc: Oleg Konovalov; Cisco certification
> >>> Subject: Re: EIGRP Maximum-hop
> >>>
> >>> p.s. I should have said we need to set maximum hops to 255 and
> generate
> >>> a
> >>> packet as if it has passed over >224 hops. IPv6 hop limit, like
> TTL,
> >>> count
> >>> down not up.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:15 PM, paul cosgrove
> >>> <paul.cosgrove@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Hi Timothy,
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks for the link. The paragraph which explains the 224 limit
> is
> >>> > incorrect in that the Transport Control Field does not exist in IP
> or
> >>> IPv6
> >>> > headers. The IPX TC header field functions like a hop count, and
> IPX
> >>> > packets with a TC of 16 are dropped, hence the need for a
> workaround
> >>> > if
> >>> > packets need to be sent further. The TTL in IP, or hop limit in
> IPv6
> >>> both
> >>> > allow 255 hops so there is no need to do that.
> >>> > The text looks to have been incorrectly copied from the old
> >>> documentation.
> >>> > The IPX workaround is explained in the old EIGRP paper at
> >>> >
> >>> http://ccrg.soe.ucsc.edu/<
> >>> http://ccrg.soe.ucsc.edu/publications/interop94.pd
> >>> f <http://ccrg.soe.ucsc.edu/publications/interop94.pdf>>
> >>> >
> >>> publications/interop94.pdf<
> >>> http://ccrg.soe.ucsc.edu/publications/interop94.p
> >>> df>
> >>> > and all the references I've seen to 224 appear to have been
> >>> derived/copied
> >>> > from that text. I've left a comment on the web page that it needs
> >>> updating.
> >>> >
> >>> > Since the documentation about the max hop limit is conflicting,
> some
> >>> > of
> >>> it
> >>> > must be incorrect. My guess is that the limit is indeed 255, but
> the
> >>> only
> >>> > way we will know for sure is to generate an eigrp packet with the
> hop
> >>> limit
> >>> > set above 224 and see if other routers consider the advertisement
> as
> >>> valid.
> >>> >
> >>> > Paul.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Timothy Chin
> <Tim@1c-solutions.com
> >>> >wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I know there has been conflicting information on this for awhile.
> I
> >>> don't
> >>> >> know why but the 12.4 command reference for IPv4 doesn't provide
> this
> >>> >> information but the IPv6 reference does specify the maximum
> network
> >>> width:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6-eigrp_p
>
s644<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6-eigrp_p
s644>
> >>>
> 1_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html<http://www.cisco.com/en/
> US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6-eigrp_ps6441_TSD_Products_Confi
>
guration_Guide_Chapter.html<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configur
ation/guide/ip6-eigrp_ps6441_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html>
> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I don't see an update on the 12.4 IPv4 documentation regarding
> this
> >>> >> but
> >>> >> going by previous releases I figure it would still be the same.
> From
> >>> what
> >>> I
> >>> >> know a maximum hop count of 255 can be configured but traffic
> would
> >>> only
> >>> >> traverse 224.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> ------------------------------
> >>> >>
> >>> >> *From:* paul cosgrove [mailto:paul.cosgrove@gmail.com]
> >>> >> *Sent:* Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:56 PM
> >>> >> *To:* Timothy Chin
> >>> >> *Cc:* Oleg Konovalov; Cisco certification
> >>> >> *Subject:* Re: EIGRP Maximum-hop
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi Timothy,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Just wondering if you have verified that?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I know there is conflicting information about this point but the
> 12.4
> >>> >> command reference says the limit is 255.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/iproute/command/reference/irp_eig2.h
> tml#
> >>>
> wp1011619<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/iproute/command/reference/
>
irp_eig2.html#wp1011619<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/iproute/command/r
eference/irp_eig2.html#wp1011619>
> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Also the field is indeed 8 bits long in the packets (see figure
> 4-7).
> >>> >> http://oreilly.com/catalog/iprouting/chapter/ch04.html
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The following paper mentions the limit of 224, but only as a
> >>> >> workaround
> >>> >> used on IPX networks to overcome limitations of IPX.
> >>> >> http://ccrg.soe.ucsc.edu/publications/interop94.pdf
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Paul.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Timothy Chin
> <Tim@1c-solutions.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The maximum definable hop count is 255 but 224 hops is the true
> >>> >> limit.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>> >> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> Behalf
> >>> Of
> >>> >> Oleg Konovalov
> >>> >> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 5:05 AM
> >>> >> To: Cisco certification
> >>> >> Subject: EIGRP Maximum-hop
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi all, I have question about EIGRP maximum hops, based on
> >>> >>
> >>>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_white_paper09186a0080
> >>> >>
> >>> 094cb<
> >>>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_white_paper09186a00
> >>> 80094cb>
> >>> >> 7.shtml we can set up maximum 220 hops, based on some CCNP
> materials
> >>> >> it
> >>> >> is
> >>> >> 224. I test it on my router and 255 hops was OK.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Routing Protocol is "eigrp 100"
> >>> >> Outgoing update filter list for all interfaces is not set
> >>> >> Incoming update filter list for all interfaces is not set
> >>> >> Default networks flagged in outgoing updates
> >>> >> Default networks accepted from incoming updates
> >>> >> EIGRP metric weight K1=1, K2=0, K3=1, K4=0, K5=0
> >>> >> EIGRP maximum hopcount 100
> >>> >> EIGRP maximum metric variance 1
> >>> >> Redistributing: eigrp 100
> >>> >> EIGRP NSF-aware route hold timer is 240s
> >>> >> Automatic network summarization is in effect
> >>> >> Maximum path: 4
> >>> >> Routing for Networks:
> >>> >> Routing Information Sources:
> >>> >> Gateway Distance Last Update
> >>> >> Distance: internal 90 external 170
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Then I have changed metric maximum-hops
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Router(config)#router eigrp 100
> >>> >> Router(config-router)#metric maximum-hops 255
> >>> >> Router(config-router)#end
> >>> >> Router#sh ip protocols
> >>> >> Routing Protocol is "eigrp 100"
> >>> >> Outgoing update filter list for all interfaces is not set
> >>> >> Incoming update filter list for all interfaces is not set
> >>> >> Default networks flagged in outgoing updates
> >>> >> Default networks accepted from incoming updates
> >>> >> EIGRP metric weight K1=1, K2=0, K3=1, K4=0, K5=0
> >>> >> EIGRP maximum hopcount 255
> >>> >> EIGRP maximum metric variance 1
> >>> >> Redistributing: eigrp 100
> >>> >> EIGRP NSF-aware route hold timer is 240s
> >>> >> Automatic network summarization is in effect
> >>> >> Maximum path: 4
> >>> >> Routing for Networks:
> >>> >> Routing Information Sources:
> >>> >> Gateway Distance Last Update
> >>> >> Distance: internal 90 external 170
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> >>> >> Subscription information may be found at:
> >>> >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> >>> >> Subscription information may be found at:
> >>> >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >>>
> >>>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> >>> Subscription information may be found at:
> >>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController -
> www.MailController.altohiway.com
> _Click
> https://www.mailcontroller.altohiway.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==>
>
b68OqDCyYgQHalzRJjGqqr8<https://www.mailcontroller.altohiway.com/sr/wQw0zmjPo
HdJTZGyOCrrhg==>!IUn7vY1rFA8i2VlG!xkZFVj55a0nEA+RCg==
> to report
> this email as spam.
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
> This e-mail (and any attachments) are confidential, legally privileged
> and/or protected by copyright. This e-mail is intended only for the
> addressee or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee. If
> you receive this e-mail in error please notify the sender by replying by
> e-mail or telephone immediately (telephone 01635 55 55 55. If calling from
> outside the UK 0044 1635 55 55 55) and then delete this e-mail (and any
> attachments) from your system, entirely. You should not disclose the
> contents of this e-mail (and any attachments) to any other person and no
> copies should be made.
> Company registration number: 1520800
> Registered Office: du PrC) plc, Vo-Tec Centre, Hambridge Lane, Newbury,
> Berkshire. RG14 5TN.
>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses by
MailController<http://www.MailController.altohiway.com/>
> .
>
> _Click
here<https://www.mailcontroller.altohiway.com/sr/CVw+LCHDnxbTndxI%21oX7UrSi%2
1x6S%21wnT6om%21Pjo5gNVrFG98Bk6IGijEqIgsyZVfdE25ZK7QOnN3+V+ukjRruw==>to report
this email as spam.
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
>
> This e-mail (and any attachments) are confidential, legally privileged
> and/or protected by copyright. This e-mail is intended only for the
> addressee or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee. If
> you receive this e-mail in error please notify the sender by replying by
> e-mail or telephone immediately (telephone 01635 55 55 55. If calling from
> outside the UK 0044 1635 55 55 55) and then delete this e-mail (and any
> attachments) from your system, entirely. You should not disclose the
> contents of this e-mail (and any attachments) to any other person and no
> copies should be made.
>
> Company registration number: 1520800
>
> Registered Office: du Pri plc, Vo-Tec Centre, Hambridge Lane, Newbury,
> Berkshire. RG14 5TN.
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 01 2009 - 12:53:07 ARST