Rgds, Rich
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Antonio Soares wrote: > > Well, i’ve seen this problem before. I made a little search with Bug Tookit and found this: > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > CSCse78533 Bug Details > > Debug mpls packet shows incorrect label stack > > Symptom: > Debug mpls packets shows bogus label stack. > > Conditions: > When debug mpls packets is turned on. > > Workaround: > Do not run debug mpls packets. > > Related Bug Information > > Printing incorrect label information in mpls debug > > Symptom: When MPLS Traffic is sent over a TE Tunnel, the debug output produced using the command debug mpls packet produces > incorrect information about the label stack. > > Workaround: There is no workaround. > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > I saw this problem in scenarios without MPLS TE. > > > Regards, > > Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S) > amsoares@netcabo.pt > > —–Original Message—– > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Pavel Bykov > Sent: quinta-feira, 20 de Novembro de 2008 20:04 > To: Rich Collins > Cc: Con Spathas; ccielab@groupstudy.com > Subject: Re: MPLS EXP remarking > > Since CEF is the mechanism that is working with tags, I expect FIB/LFIB to do the tag bidding. > When you debug, then it has to be process switched, so that might be responsible. > > What I was thinking of though, is the exact output of debug command. Is it really EXP or CoS? Because since you are using VLANs, it > could just refer to cos markings. > Are you setting CoS as well? Can you try setting CoS? > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Rich Collins wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I just tried a very similar scenario to yours (Uniform mode) with dynamips. > > > > If I turned on “debug mpls packet”on P1 (where the match and rewrite > > of the EXP occurs) then the policy maps/service policies wouldn’t > > work. It confused me because I had seen some increment in the > > counters but that was from the time before I had activated the debug. > > So it worked properly after turning off this debug and observing > > further along in the P core such as on your R4 (enabling debug mpls > > packet here). > > > > Is there some caveat when using “debug mpls packet”? > > > > -Rich > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Con Spathas > > > >wrote: > > > > > Gday, > > > > > > I think I’m missing something quite fundamental here but I can’t > > > seem to find the reason why… > > > > > > I have the following setup: > > > > > > R1 (CE) - R2 (PE) - R3 (P) - R4 (P) - R5 (PE) - R6 (CE) > > > > > > R2 is matching ICMP inbound from R1 and marking it MPLS EXP 4 > > > R3 is matching MPLS EXP 4 from R2 and remarking it to MPLS EXP1 > > > > > > I see that is happening when I debug on R4 (the COS=4 on the XMIT is > > > the VPN > > > label) which is what I expect as R5 is currently sending implicit > > > null to R4. > > > If I configure R5 to advertise explicit null in LDP, the debug > > > output changes correctly and the xmit CoS = 1. Anyhow that’s not my > > > issue - just background info. > > > > > > R4 > > > *Mar 1 02:40:51.859: MPLS: Et0/0.34: recvd: CoS=1, TTL=253, > > Label(s)=19/21 > > > *Mar 1 02:40:51.863: MPLS: Et0/0.45: xmit: CoS=4, TTL=252, > > > Label(s)=21 > > > > > > The bit that is eluding my understanding is the output on R3. > > > > > > R3 > > > *Mar 1 00:10:59.075: MPLS: Et0/0.23: recvd: CoS=4, TTL=254, > > Label(s)=17/21 > > > *Mar 1 00:10:59.079: MPLS: Et0/0.34: xmit: CoS=4, TTL=253, > > Label(s)=19/21 > > > > > > I can’t work out why the xmit is showing the CoS=4 - even though R4 > > > does receive it as CoS=1 ? I expected on R3 to see CoS=1 on the XMIT. > > > > > > This is the policy map in have inbound on R3’s connection to R2. > > > > > > class-map match-all EXP4 > > > match mpls experimental topmost 4 > > > ! > > > policy-map IN > > > class EXP4 > > > set mpls experimental topmost 1 > > > > > > The policy-map output is incrementing counters correctly. So whilst > > > the re-marking is working - I don’t quite understand why the debug > > > on R3 > > isn’t > > > consistent with what I subsequently see on R4. > > > > > > Any insight would be great. Thanks. > > > > > > Con. > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > — > Pavel Bykov > ————————————————- > Stop the braindumps! > http://www.stopbraindumps.com/ > > > 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

>—–Original Message—– >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On >Behalf Of ext Gutierrez, Rodrigo (NSN - CO/Santa Fe de Bogota) >Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:49 PM >To: Antonio Soares; Kim teu; Cisco certification >Subject: RE: Layer 2 loop breaks OSPF adjacency over Layer 3 links > >Just use broadcast storm control to diminish the loop impact >processor wise and to define the broadcast threshold allowed >as per interface, in that way it will give you more time to >track down the source of the problem or at least time enough >to disconnect all secondary layer 2 redundancy, loops are >lethal and can bring down your network in a matter of seconds, > >Rodrigo > > > > >>—–Original Message—– >>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On >Behalf Of >>ext Antonio Soares >>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:43 PM >>To: ‘Kim teu’; ‘Cisco certification’ >>Subject: RE: Layer 2 loop breaks OSPF adjacency over Layer 3 links >> >>A STP Loop can stop everything in your network. I saw an entire data >>center going down in less than 1 second! When this is happening, the >>best to do is to break every existent L2 redundant link quickly. In >>some situations, if you don’t have physical access to the equipments, >>this is just not possible! >> >>Then when the storm is over, you can try to trace the source of the >>problem. But i can tell you it’s very difficult or even not >possible to >>find out what failed. >> >>Cisco has a good document about this: >> >>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk621/technologies_tech_n >>ote09186a0080136673.shtml >> >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S) >>amsoares@netcabo.pt >> >>—–Original Message—– >>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On >Behalf Of >>Kim teu >>Sent: quinta-feira, 20 de Novembro de 2008 14:55 >>To: Cisco certification >>Subject: Layer 2 loop breaks OSPF adjacency over Layer 3 links >> >>Hello all, >> >>*Has anyone experienced a layer 2 loop event that caused OSPF >adjacency >>to be dropped for layer 3 links? Any idea why?* >> >> >>** >> >>*What’s the best way to diagnose the cause of the layer 2 after the >>outage? >>The following is what I see in the log.** VLAN 56 is looping…* >> >> >>*The switch is seeing packet sourced from itself::* >> >>>>>472825: .Nov 19 15:38:56 CST: %STANDBY-3-DUPADDR: Duplicate address >>192.168.97.1 on Vlan56, sourced by 0017.df1c.6800 >> >> >> >>*The standby state change to active because the switch lost it >>connection to the active switch because of SPT loop prevention::* >> >>>>>472826: .Nov 19 15:39:00 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: >>Vlan72 Group 72 >>state Standby -> Active >> >>>>>472827: .Nov 19 15:39:03 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan116 Group >>>>>116 >>state Standby -> Active >> >>>>>472828: .Nov 19 15:39:26 CST: %STANDBY-3-DUPADDR: Duplicate address >>192.168.97.1 on Vlan56, sourced by 0017.df1c.6800 >> >>>>>472829: .Nov 19 15:39:38 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan152 Group >>>>>152 >>state Active -> Speak >> >>>>>472830: .Nov 19 15:39:47 CST: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 10, Nbr >>192.168.200.5 on Vlan704 from EXSTART to DOWN, Neighbor Down: >>Dead timer expired >> >>>>>472831: .Nov 19 15:39:54 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan134 Group >>>>>134 >>state Active -> Speak >> >>>>>472832: .Nov 19 15:39:56 CST: %STANDBY-3-DUPADDR: Duplicate address >>192.168.97.1 on Vlan56, sourced by 0017.df1c.6800 >> >>>>>472833: .Nov 19 15:39:59 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan152 Group >>>>>152 >>state Standby -> Active >>>>>472834: .Nov 19 15:40:14 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan134 Group >>>>>134 >>state Standby -> Active >> >> >>Kim >> >> >>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

>—–Original Message—– >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On >Behalf Of ext Antonio Soares >Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:43 PM >To: ‘Kim teu’; ‘Cisco certification’ >Subject: RE: Layer 2 loop breaks OSPF adjacency over Layer 3 links > >A STP Loop can stop everything in your network. I saw an >entire data center going down in less than 1 second! When this >is happening, the best to do is to break every existent L2 >redundant link quickly. In some situations, if you don’t have >physical access to the equipments, this is just not possible! > >Then when the storm is over, you can try to trace the source >of the problem. But i can tell you it’s very difficult or even >not possible to find out what failed. > >Cisco has a good document about this: > >http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk389/tk621/technologies_tech_n >ote09186a0080136673.shtml > > > >Regards, > >Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S) >amsoares@netcabo.pt > >—–Original Message—– >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On >Behalf Of Kim teu >Sent: quinta-feira, 20 de Novembro de 2008 14:55 >To: Cisco certification >Subject: Layer 2 loop breaks OSPF adjacency over Layer 3 links > >Hello all, > >*Has anyone experienced a layer 2 loop event that caused OSPF >adjacency to be dropped for layer 3 links? Any idea why?* > > >** > >*What’s the best way to diagnose the cause of the layer 2 >after the outage? >The following is what I see in the log.** VLAN 56 is looping…* > > >*The switch is seeing packet sourced from itself::* > >>>>472825: .Nov 19 15:38:56 CST: %STANDBY-3-DUPADDR: Duplicate address >192.168.97.1 on Vlan56, sourced by 0017.df1c.6800 > > > >*The standby state change to active because the switch lost it >connection to the active switch because of SPT loop prevention::* > >>>>472826: .Nov 19 15:39:00 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: >Vlan72 Group 72 >state Standby -> Active > >>>>472827: .Nov 19 15:39:03 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan116 Group >>>>116 >state Standby -> Active > >>>>472828: .Nov 19 15:39:26 CST: %STANDBY-3-DUPADDR: Duplicate address >192.168.97.1 on Vlan56, sourced by 0017.df1c.6800 > >>>>472829: .Nov 19 15:39:38 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan152 Group >>>>152 >state Active -> Speak > >>>>472830: .Nov 19 15:39:47 CST: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 10, Nbr >192.168.200.5 on Vlan704 from EXSTART to DOWN, Neighbor Down: >Dead timer expired > >>>>472831: .Nov 19 15:39:54 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan134 Group >>>>134 >state Active -> Speak > >>>>472832: .Nov 19 15:39:56 CST: %STANDBY-3-DUPADDR: Duplicate address >192.168.97.1 on Vlan56, sourced by 0017.df1c.6800 > >>>>472833: .Nov 19 15:39:59 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan152 Group >>>>152 >state Standby -> Active >>>>472834: .Nov 19 15:40:14 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan134 Group >>>>134 >state Standby -> Active > > >Kim > > >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

Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S) amsoares@netcabo.pt
—–Original Message—– From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Kim teu Sent: quinta-feira, 20 de Novembro de 2008 14:55 To: Cisco certification Subject: Layer 2 loop breaks OSPF adjacency over Layer 3 links
Hello all,
*Has anyone experienced a layer 2 loop event that caused OSPF adjacency to be dropped for layer 3 links? Any idea why?*
**
*What’s the best way to diagnose the cause of the layer 2 after the outage? The following is what I see in the log.** VLAN 56 is looping…*
*The switch is seeing packet sourced from itself::*
>>>472825: .Nov 19 15:38:56 CST: %STANDBY-3-DUPADDR: Duplicate address 192.168.97.1 on Vlan56, sourced by 0017.df1c.6800

*The standby state change to active because the switch lost it connection to the active switch because of SPT loop prevention::*
>>>472826: .Nov 19 15:39:00 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan72 Group 72 state Standby -> Active
>>>472827: .Nov 19 15:39:03 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan116 Group >>>116 state Standby -> Active
>>>472828: .Nov 19 15:39:26 CST: %STANDBY-3-DUPADDR: Duplicate address 192.168.97.1 on Vlan56, sourced by 0017.df1c.6800
>>>472829: .Nov 19 15:39:38 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan152 Group >>>152 state Active -> Speak
>>>472830: .Nov 19 15:39:47 CST: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 10, Nbr 192.168.200.5 on Vlan704 from EXSTART to DOWN, Neighbor Down: Dead timer expired
>>>472831: .Nov 19 15:39:54 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan134 Group >>>134 state Active -> Speak
>>>472832: .Nov 19 15:39:56 CST: %STANDBY-3-DUPADDR: Duplicate address 192.168.97.1 on Vlan56, sourced by 0017.df1c.6800
>>>472833: .Nov 19 15:39:59 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan152 Group >>>152 state Standby -> Active >>>472834: .Nov 19 15:40:14 CST: %STANDBY-6-STATECHANGE: Vlan134 Group >>>134 state Standby -> Active
Kim
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Darby Weaver wrote:
> All, > > I’ve seen a lot of demand for the CISSP. > > It’s not that hard from a technical perspective but it is broad and does > require a little time to study for it. > > It has its place and some people with the CISSP are commanding greater > salaries than a CCIE. > > But recall the CISSP is not assumed to have any specific knowledge of > either > a PIX/ASA nor Cisco. > > It’s a generalist certification very similar to the SANS GSEC. > > If you want to work in a Security capacity it’s kind of assumed to be > there. > > So not a bad $500.00 or so investment for the exam or maybe $4500-5000.00 > for a class. > > Cheaper than a CCIE for sure. > > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM, darth router >wrote: > > > Good conversation. I’ve seen it as a DoD contract requirement before. I’d > > probably look at it as a resume booster, but I do have to admit, there > was > > good material with what I did read over, just boring, and not action > packed > > like working on cisco gear! > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Duncan Maccubbin > duncan.maccubbin@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > How much did your CCIE teach you about Physical data center security? > > > Disaster recovery? Law? While it didn’t go into deep detail I still > > learned > > > quit a bit. The CISSP is what it is which is not a vendor specific > hands > > on > > > exam. > > > > > > “But to each is own… I worked at a company where like 5 people got > the > > > CISSP. None of them could configure even the basic stuff on a pix… so > > what > > > does that tell you???” > > > > > > It tells me you have no clue what the CISSP exam is about. > > > > > > —–Original Message—– > > > >From: Joseph Brunner > > > >Sent: Nov 17, 2008 10:41 AM > > > >To: “‘Diment, Andrew’” , ‘darth router’ > > darklordrouter@gmail.com>, ‘Cisco certification’ ccielab@groupstudy.com > > > > > > >Subject: RE: OT What do you all think about CISSP certification? > > > > > > > >Right, I agree “knowledge is never useless” > > > > > > > >There is better security knowledge for today’s re-aligned world in the > > > >CCNA-SEC > > > > > > > >I wouldn’t even say the CISSP is an inch deep… it’s about a > millimeter > > > >deep, that’s why I think its worthless. The CCIE written’s are an inch > > > deep. > > > > > > > >But to each is own… I worked at a company where like 5 people got > the > > > >CISSP. None of them could configure even the basic stuff on a pix… > so > > > what > > > >does that tell you??? > > > > > > > >-Joe > > > > > > > >—–Original Message—– > > > >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf > Of > > > >Diment, Andrew > > > >Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:26 AM > > > >To: Joseph Brunner; darth router; Cisco certification > > > >Subject: RE: OT What do you all think about CISSP certification? > > > > > > > >I don’t agree with your assessment that the CISSP is useless. Does it > > > >teach you to configure a firewall…no, but neither does a college > > > >degree. Would you consider that useless too? Knowledge is never > > > >useless. > > > > > > > >You just need to take it for what it is, a 50,000 foot view of all > > > >aspects of security. A mile wide and an inch deep. By itself it > might > > > >not mean much, but it does show you went through the material and > passed > > > >the test. Anything, and I mean anything, that will move your resume > to > > > >the “interview” pile is very useful. > > > > > > > >I very recently applied for a security job within my own company. I > got > > > >a call from HR and the guys exact words were “you have a CCIE and a > > > >CISSP, I’m going to immediately forward your resume to the hiring > > > >manager”. I had an interview 24 hours later. > > > > > > > >Andy > > > > > > > >—–Original Message—– > > > >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf > Of > > > >Joseph Brunner > > > >Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:39 AM > > > >To: ‘darth router’; ‘Cisco certification’ > > > >Subject: RE: OT What do you all think about CISSP certification? > > > > > > > >OT is right.. search the archives… > > > > > > > >My thoughts - useless, now more than ever… > > > > > > > >Its bad in IT right now unless you can configure a firewall, not tell > us > > > >we should have one. Unless you can configure a lockdown of a voice > over > > > >ip network, not tell us we should lock down our voice over ip network. > > > >Get it? > > > > > > > >The CISSP is heavy on theory, but not many places have time for > theories > > > >any more… they are running their budgets on empty until at least > 2011. > > > >Its time to roll up your sleeves and hit the datacenter. > > > > > > > >-Joe > > > > > > > >—–Original Message—– > > > >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf > Of > > > >darth router > > > >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 8:58 PM > > > >To: Cisco certification > > > >Subject: OT What do you all think about CISSP certification? > > > > > > > >Anyone have it? Does it bring any real value to your career? > > > > > > > > > > > >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 communication is the property of Qwest and may contain > confidential > > > or > > > >privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is > > strictly > > > >prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this > communication > > > >in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and > > destroy > > > >all copies of the communication and any attachments. > > > > > > > > > > > >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 > > > > > >

Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil……
—–Original Message—– From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of oluwaseyi ojo Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:23 PM To: Cisco certification Subject: How to become a Cisco Learning Partner[CLP]
Hello All,
Can someone please provide me with a detailed and straight forward steps on the above subject. I googled this but the response I got are not what I really want. I need someone who has done this before to please give me an expert view on this. Things like person in-charge of CLP, contact details,requirements, pre-requisites,etc.
I deeply appreciate,thanks alot.
Cheers.
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net

It’s kinda out of topic from ccie lab,

but I just wondering after googling several times, I still cannot find the solution.

So the problem is , In My company, we use static ip to connect to LAN. But the problem is, a lot of ip conflict in the network and unfortunately, sometimes there are users using my President Director IP Address.

So, that make world war 3 in my office

So I’ve got called to resolve this problem. Any suggestion ?

Regards

Mark Stephanus Chandra IT Consultant
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net