Metric is to differentiate b/w a Tunnel and a normal path
For example ; metric of a normal path between A and B is X
metric of tunnel between A and B can be adjusted to a value of Y and hence
affecting the routing decision.
HTH
Gaurav Madan
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Routing Freak <routingfreak_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> Sonu
>
> Yeah i agree wid ur point. So using TE it is possible to do Unequal Cost
> load balancing with the use of B.W.
> Then wat is the use of Auto route metric command used for ?
>
> And also what is called as administrative weight in MPLS TE.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Sonu Khandelwal <sonu.kwl_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Head end router will chose both the path. Look at this case below.
>>
>> PE1------P1------PE2
>> | |
>> |_____P2----------|
>>
>> Now say all links b/w PE1 and PE2 are ten gig interface. ospf cost to
>> reach
>> PE2 via P1 or P2 is same.
>>
>> We create two tunnels T1 via P1 and T2 via P2.
>>
>> once tunnels are up, PE1 will load balance packets to PE2 by using both
>> tunnels.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sonu
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:36 PM, CCIE KID <eliteccie_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Gaurav
>> >
>> > Then wat s the significance of Metric command in TE ?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:14 PM, GAURAV MADAN <
>> gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> There can be multiple tunnels between a given src and a given dest.
>> >> If all properties of tunnel are same .... This will result in equal
>> path
>> >> load balancing
>> >> If properties like b/w are diff .... Unequal path load balancing will
>> >> take place ..
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:02 PM, CCIE KID <eliteccie_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Sonu
>> >>>
>> >>> But the Head end Router l will choose only one path to the same Tail
>> End
>> >>> Router with only one Tunnel. Why it chooses two Tunnels ?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Sonu Khandelwal <sonu.kwl_at_gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Yes, for two path to the same destination two tunnels will be needed
>> >>>> with two different explicit path.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute metric" to used to change the igp
>> >>>> metric of the tunnel interface. By default tunnel's igp metric is
>> the same
>> >>>> as igp metric b/w source and destination.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> for e.g
>> >>>>
>> >>>> if tunnel source is 1.1.1.1 and tunnel destination is 3.3.3.3. Assume
>> >>>> tunnel is not present and cost to reach from 1.1.1.1 to 3.3.3.3 is
>> 10.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Now when tunnel comes up, its metric will be 10.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> if you want this metric of 10 to be changed then you can use "tunnel
>> >>>> mpls traffic-eng autoroute metric" to do the same thing.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Sonu
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:27 PM, CCIE KID <eliteccie_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Gaurav
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Dude one new doubt man
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> To reach a particular Tail end router, there should be only route.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In regular SPF, the result of path computation may be two equal cost
>> >>>>> multipaths (ECMP) to a destination. However, the result of CSPF is
>> always
>> >>>>> one path to the tailend router. In case, two paths are equal, CSPF
>> has 3
>> >>>>> rules followed sequentially to break the tie:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *a.* Take the path with largest minimum available bandwidth
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *b.* Take the path with the lowest hop-count (number of routers in
>> >>>>> the path)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *c.* Take one path at random.
>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So there should be only one path to a TAIL END router.. How does it
>> >>>>> has two paths for a same TAILEND router. via two different TE
>> TUNNELS.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:44 PM, CCIE KID <eliteccie_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Gaurav
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Tats gr8 mate .. I will also check the purpose of it and let u know
>> >>>>>> buddy..
>> >>>>>> Till then study hard
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:33 PM, GAURAV MADAN <
>> >>>>>> gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Kid
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Everything you said is exactly what i understand this topic :)
>> >>>>>>> We are on same page .
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I will simulate the usage of metric command and try to post
>> results ,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Till then .. thnx
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Gaurav Madan
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 7:39 PM, CCIE KID <eliteccie_at_gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Gaurav
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> TE Auto Route Announce will just make ur OSPF learned LSA's from
>> >>>>>>>> the Tunnel Tail End to utitlize the Tunnel path to reach all
>> the networks
>> >>>>>>>> behind the Tunnel Tail End Router. It has nothing to do with
>> priority
>> >>>>>>>> levels for each tunnel
>> >>>>>>>> U can assign priorities to each tunnel and then tat take over the
>> >>>>>>>> appropriate B.W. available in the interface if it has highest
>> priority
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> In ur case both ur tunnels has both set up and hold priority has
>> 7
>> >>>>>>>> and 7
>> >>>>>>>> 7 and 7 is the least priority tat u can assign to a tunnel and
>> both
>> >>>>>>>> the tunnels has the same priority and both r pointing to the
>> same tunnel
>> >>>>>>>> tail end and also u r running Auto Route Announce on both the
>> tunnels
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> But the only difference between the two tunnels is the Bandwidth
>> >>>>>>>> and to form the two tunnels it requires 60 and 70 kbps end to
>> end to form
>> >>>>>>>> the tunnel. So atleast the B.W of the end to end path should be
>> atleast
>> >>>>>>>> 130kpbs
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> So now OSPF will carry the TE information like the requested B.W
>> >>>>>>>> and also other TE colors associated with TE in its Opaque LSA
>> Type 9 ,10
>> >>>>>>>> and 11. depends upon it is a Single Area OSPF or Multi Area and
>> also it is
>> >>>>>>>> within the Single AS. If the Head end sees that it has enough
>> B.W. then the
>> >>>>>>>> Path message from Head end to Tail End and Reserve message from
>> the Tail
>> >>>>>>>> End to head End is succesfull , the tunnel will be up.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> if there is any change in the available BW in that particular end
>> >>>>>>>> to end path, it will be conveyed by OSPF and it triggers the
>> Path message
>> >>>>>>>> and Reserve message
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> In ur setup
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> U r obviously u r going to see two paths to reach the tail-end
>> >>>>>>>> router via these two tunnels and there will be Unequal cost LOAD
>> balancing
>> >>>>>>>> . If u want to prioritize one tunnel over another one , just
>> change the
>> >>>>>>>> metric of the tunnel rather than the BW
>> >>>>>>>> Because B.W inside the tunnel doesnt reflect ur BEST METRIC to
>> >>>>>>>> reach a particular TE Tail End
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> So ultimately u have many paths to the Same tail end router ie
>> via
>> >>>>>>>> different tunnels.So ultimately it all depends upon how much BW
>> is required
>> >>>>>>>> to form the tunnel . Int his case , there will 70:60 ratio of
>> traffic going
>> >>>>>>>> from one tunnel to another tunnel.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> If u dont want to see Unequal Cost Load Balancing, u have to do
>> >>>>>>>> Policy Routing rather than using AutoRoute Announce.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> But I am not sure about this command
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute metric
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> If u give this command whether one tunnel will be preferred over
>> >>>>>>>> another tunnel if ur Tail End Router address are same.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Post me about this command dude
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Hope this helps
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Naveen <navin.ms_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. What you have is already doing UELB (unequal cost load
>> >>>>>>>>> balancing in
>> >>>>>>>>> the ratio 6:7) also across TE tunnels. Try sending some traffic
>> >>>>>>>>> end to end,
>> >>>>>>>>> and check the TE counters.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> If your intention is not to load balancing at all, then remove
>> >>>>>>>>> "autoroute
>> >>>>>>>>> announce", and then route traffic to the tunnel you want with a
>> >>>>>>>>> local
>> >>>>>>>>> policy.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM, GAURAV MADAN <
>> >>>>>>>>> gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> > Naveen ,
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> > Thnx for the reply ..
>> >>>>>>>>> > Do you mean to suggest some kind of unequal load-balancing
>> >>>>>>>>> across various
>> >>>>>>>>> > TE tunnels .
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> > Between the tunnels ; I can choose using following command :
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> > Router(config-if)#tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute metric
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> > I can set one tunnel as lower metric to be announced over the
>> >>>>>>>>> second
>> >>>>>>>>> > tunnel . and hence play around with this
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> > Is that what u r suggesting ?
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> > Gaurav Madan
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Naveen <navin.ms_at_gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> >> What you are seeing is Load balancing across multiple TE
>> >>>>>>>>> tunnels for
>> >>>>>>>>> >> prefixes reachable further down the tunnel. This is an
>> expected
>> >>>>>>>>> behavior
>> >>>>>>>>> >> with "autoroute announce". You can use "auto-bw" to
>> dynamically
>> >>>>>>>>> control the
>> >>>>>>>>> >> TE tunnel Bandwidth after tunnel setup.
>> >>>>>>>>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>> >> Once tunnels are established (using CSPF), IGP considers the
>> >>>>>>>>> Tunnels as
>> >>>>>>>>> >> always 1-hop (and always prefers over any other IGP 1-hop
>> >>>>>>>>> path). You can
>> >>>>>>>>> >> load balance upto 8,16, or 32 TE paths as supported by the
>> >>>>>>>>> platform.
>> >>>>>>>>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>> >> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Sonu Khandelwal <
>> >>>>>>>>> sonu.kwl_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> [image: Boxbe] <https://www.boxbe.com/overview> Sonu
>> >>>>>>>>> Khandelwal (
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> sonu.kwl_at_gmail.com) is not on your Guest List<
>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.boxbe.com/approved-list>| Approve
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> sender <https://www.boxbe.com/anno?tc=10557674166_204049186
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> | Approve
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> domain <
>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.boxbe.com/anno?tc=10557674166_204049186&dom>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> on interface it means how much bandwidth can be reserved by
>> >>>>>>>>> RSVP.
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> on tunnel it means, how much bandwidth is required by
>> tunnel.
>> >>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> Hope it helps.
>> >>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> Sonu
>> >>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:37 PM, GAURAV MADAN <
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > Then what does "rsvp bandwidth <> " on interface does ?
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > That is also a constraint on interface to establish the
>> >>>>>>>>> tunnel ..
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> right ?
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > How do you differentiate between the BW that we specify on
>> >>>>>>>>> interface
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> level
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > and the one that we specify on interface tunnel ?
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > Thnx
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > Gaurav Madan
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Paul Negron <
>> >>>>>>>>> negron.paul_at_gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > The bandwidth is a constraint. It only says " I need
>> 60K of
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> bandwidth in
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > order to establish this tunnel". One tunnel requires 60K
>> >>>>>>>>> and the
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> other
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > requires 70K. If the bandwidth is available for both,
>> they
>> >>>>>>>>> will both
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> be
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > established. That "bandwidth" constraint has nothing to
>> do
>> >>>>>>>>> with the
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> cost
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > of
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > the tunnel for route selection.
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > --
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > Paul Negron
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > CCIE# 14856 CCSI# 22752
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > Senior Technical Instructor
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > From: GAURAV MADAN <gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Reply-To: GAURAV MADAN <gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:44:46 +0530
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > To: Cisco certification <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Subject: MPLS TE Tunnel : Tunnel B/W doubt
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Hi All
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > I am running in some issue to understand how Tunnel
>> >>>>>>>>> Bandwidth
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> works .
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Topology
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > ---------
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > R1 R4
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > | |
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > | |
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > R2-----------------R3
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > R1 is head end of tunnel . It has 2 tunnels Tunnel0
>> and
>> >>>>>>>>> Tunnel 1 as
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > follows
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > :
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > R1#sh run int tun 0
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Building configuration...
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Current configuration : 284 bytes
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > !
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > interface Tunnel0
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > ip unnumbered Loopback0
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel destination 4.4.4.4
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 70
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic
>> lockdown
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > end
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > R1#sh run int tun 1
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Building configuration...
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Current configuration : 284 bytes
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > !
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > interface Tunnel1
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > ip unnumbered Loopback0
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel destination 4.4.4.4
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 60
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic
>> lockdown
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Now ; one tunnel has bandwidth of 70Kbps and other has
>> >>>>>>>>> of 60Kbps .
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Following is my show ip route ospf output :
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > 4.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > O 4.4.4.4 [110/4] via 4.4.4.4, 00:05:52,
>> Tunnel1
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > [110/4] via 4.4.4.4, 00:05:52,
>> Tunnel0
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > I see both entries there ...
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Is there a reason for this ?
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Please let me know .. I think that it should be
>> routing
>> >>>>>>>>> via Tunnel
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> 0
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > only .
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Thanks
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > Gaurav Madan
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > 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
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>> With Warmest Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> CCIE KID
>> >>>>>>>> CCIE#29992 (Security)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> With Warmest Regards,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> CCIE KID
>> >>>>>> CCIE#29992 (Security)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> With Warmest Regards,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> CCIE KID
>> >>>>> CCIE#29992 (Security)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> With Warmest Regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> CCIE KID
>> >>> CCIE#29992 (Security)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > With Warmest Regards,
>> >
>> > CCIE KID
>> > CCIE#29992 (Security)
>>
>>
>> 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
Received on Tue Jan 31 2012 - 22:06:03 ART
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Feb 02 2012 - 11:52:52 ART