VLAN 99 on the switchport must be specified on the router sub-interface(encapsu dot1q 99------------------------------ On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 1:25 PM PDT [email protected] wrote: >Send CCIE_RS mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > >You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of CCIE_RS digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 77, Issue 51 (Joe Sanchez) > 2. IPX Workbook 3 Lab 1 Task 9.4 (George Leslie) > 3. Re: IPX Workbook 3 Lab 1 Task 9.4 (marc abel) > 4. Re: IPX Workbook 3 Lab 1 Task 9.4 (George Leslie) > 5. VOL III (Task 2.4) Lab 3 (Elie Raad) > 6. Re: VOL III (Task 2.4) Lab 3 (marc abel) > 7. Re: VOL III (Task 2.4) Lab 3 (Elie Raad) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:18:52 -0500 >From: Joe Sanchez <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 77, Issue 51 >Message-ID: > <CAJVJoEeaJ8UF7b04tJHxX5gkE=4v38zad+x5hfwbcnpt_v5...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >Match the VLANs used on the Router "encaps dot1q 120" and the Switch VLAN >120 not VLAN 99. > > > > >On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:00 AM, <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Send CCIE_RS mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of CCIE_RS digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Sub-interface problem (Sean James Gealon) >> 2. Re: Sub-interface problem (Chad Uretsky) >> 3. Re: Sub-interface problem (Nick Bonifacio) >> 4. Re: Sub-interface problem (Chad Uretsky) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:10:04 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Sean James Gealon <[email protected]> >> To: IPExpert Online <[email protected]> >> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Sub-interface problem >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> Hi, >> >> ? ? I just want to ask if anyone had experience on Fastethernet >> sub-interface problem? >> >> ? ? I have fa0/0 which has a configuration of: >> >> ?interface FastEthernet0/0 >> ?no ip address >> ?duplex auto >> ?speed auto >> ! >> interface FastEthernet0/0.77 >> ?encapsulation dot1Q 77 >> ?ip address 20.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 >> ! >> interface FastEthernet0/0.120 >> ?encapsulation dot1Q 120 >> ?ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 >> >> ?---------------- >> >> Router(config)#do sh ip int br >> Interface ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?IP-Address ? ? ?OK? Method Status ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ?Protocol >> FastEthernet0/0 ? ? ? ? ? ?unassigned ? ? ?YES TFTP ? up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ?up ? ? ? >> FastEthernet0/0.77 ? ? ? ? 20.1.1.1 ? ? ? ? YES NVRAM ?up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> up ? ? ? >> FastEthernet0/0.120 ? ? ? 10.1.1.1 ? ? ? ? ? YES manual up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ? ?up ? ? ? >> >> >> As you can see on the output everything is running fine, interfaces are up. >> Now on the fa0/0.120 (10.1.1.1) it is connected to a switch f0/1. >> on the switch also it is configured with vlan 99 with ip address of >> 10.1.1.2 >> >> when I try to ping from router to switch using the fa0/0.120 (10.1.1.1) >> the output is down. >> but when I configure the ip address 10.1.1.1 of the router into the f0/0 >> interface (not the sub-interface) >> the ping is successful. >> >> >> ? ?Any advice? >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:21:09 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Chad Uretsky <[email protected]> >> To: Sean James Gealon <[email protected]>, IPExpert Online >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Sub-interface problem >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> Sean, >> >> The interface on the switch needs to be configured as an 802.1q trunk in >> order for this to work.? Have you verified that the switch port is >> trunking?? It sounds like you have it configured as an access port.? Also, >> as routers don't run DTP, you will have to manually set the switch port in >> trunk mode. >> >> >> Kind regards, >> Chad Uretsky >> >> >> >> >> >________________________________ >> > From: Sean James Gealon <[email protected]> >> >To: IPExpert Online <[email protected]> >> >Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:10 AM >> >Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Sub-interface problem >> > >> >Hi, >> > >> >? ? I just want to ask if anyone had experience on Fastethernet >> sub-interface problem? >> > >> >? ? I have fa0/0 which has a configuration of: >> > >> >?interface FastEthernet0/0 >> >?no ip address >> >?duplex auto >> >?speed auto >> >! >> >interface FastEthernet0/0.77 >> >?encapsulation dot1Q 77 >> >?ip address 20.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 >> >! >> >interface FastEthernet0/0.120 >> >?encapsulation dot1Q 120 >> >?ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 >> > >> >?---------------- >> > >> >Router(config)#do sh ip int br >> >Interface ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?IP-Address ? ? ?OK? Method Status ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ? ?Protocol >> >FastEthernet0/0 ? ? ? ? ? ?unassigned ? ? ?YES TFTP ? up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ? ?up ? ? ? >> >FastEthernet0/0.77 ? ? ? ? 20.1.1.1 ? ? ? ? YES NVRAM ?up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> up ? ? ? >> >FastEthernet0/0.120 ? ? ? 10.1.1.1 ? ? ? ? ? YES manual up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ? ? ?up ? ? ? >> > >> > >> >As you can see on the output everything is running fine, interfaces are >> up. >> >Now on the fa0/0.120 (10.1.1.1) it is connected to a switch f0/1. >> >on the switch also it is configured with vlan 99 with ip address of >> 10.1.1.2 >> > >> >when I try to ping from router to switch using the fa0/0.120 (10.1.1.1) >> the output is down. >> >but when I configure the ip address 10.1.1.1 of the router into the f0/0 >> interface (not the sub-interface) >> >the ping is successful. >> > >> > >> >? ?Any advice? >> >_______________________________________________ >> >For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com >> > >> >Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com <http://www.platinumplacement.com/> >> > >> >http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs >> > >> > >> > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:23:11 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Nick Bonifacio <[email protected]> >> To: Sean James Gealon <[email protected]>, IPExpert Online >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Sub-interface problem >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> James, can I see the switch config? >> ? >> vlan99 10.1.1.2 svi is going to be in vlan 99 >> ? >> 10.1.1.1 on your router is going to be in vlan 120 >> ? >> don't you want these to be in the same vlan and same subnet?? >> ? >> ? >> thanks, >> Nick >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Sean James Gealon <[email protected]> >> To: IPExpert Online <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:10 AM >> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Sub-interface problem >> >> Hi, >> >> ? ? I just want to ask if anyone had experience on Fastethernet >> sub-interface problem? >> >> ? ? I have fa0/0 which has a configuration of: >> >> ?interface FastEthernet0/0 >> ?no ip address >> ?duplex auto >> ?speed auto >> ! >> interface FastEthernet0/0.77 >> ?encapsulation dot1Q 77 >> ?ip address 20.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 >> ! >> interface FastEthernet0/0.120 >> ?encapsulation dot1Q 120 >> ?ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 >> >> ?---------------- >> >> Router(config)#do sh ip int br >> Interface ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?IP-Address ? ? ?OK? Method Status ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ?Protocol >> FastEthernet0/0 ? ? ? ? ? ?unassigned ? ? ?YES TFTP ? up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ?up ? ? ? >> FastEthernet0/0.77 ? ? ? ? 20.1.1.1 ? ? ? ? YES NVRAM ?up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> up ? ? ? >> FastEthernet0/0.120 ? ? ? 10.1.1.1 ? ? ? ? ? YES manual up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ? ?up ? ? ? >> >> >> As you can see on the output everything is running fine, interfaces are up. >> Now on the fa0/0.120 (10.1.1.1) it is connected to a switch f0/1. >> on the switch also it is configured with vlan 99 with ip address of >> 10.1.1.2 >> >> when I try to ping from router to switch using the fa0/0.120 (10.1.1.1) >> the output is down. >> but when I configure the ip address 10.1.1.1 of the router into the f0/0 >> interface (not the sub-interface) >> the ping is successful. >> >> >> ? ?Any advice? >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit http://www.ipexpert.com/ >> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >> http://www.platinumplacement.com/ >> >> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:24:15 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Chad Uretsky <[email protected]> >> To: Sean James Gealon <[email protected]>, IPExpert Online >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Sub-interface problem >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> One other thing I forgot...you'll need to match your SVI to the VLAN on >> the router.? For 10.1.1.1/10.1.1.2 to communicate, 10.1.1.2 will need to >> be assigned to an SVI for VLAN 120, not VLAN 99, based on your router >> config. >> >> Chad >> >> >> >> >> >________________________________ >> > From: Chad Uretsky <[email protected]> >> >To: Sean James Gealon <[email protected]>; IPExpert Online < >> [email protected]> >> >Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:21 AM >> >Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Sub-interface problem >> > >> >Sean, >> > >> >The interface on the switch needs to be configured as an 802.1q trunk in >> order for this to work.? Have you verified that the switch port is >> trunking?? It sounds like you have it configured as an access port.? Also, >> as routers don't run DTP, you will have to manually set the switch port in >> trunk mode. >> > >> > >> >Kind regards, >> >Chad Uretsky >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >>________________________________ >> >> From: Sean James Gealon <[email protected]> >> >>To: IPExpert Online <[email protected]> >> >>Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:10 AM >> >>Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Sub-interface problem >> >> >> >>Hi, >> >> >> >>? ? I just want to ask if anyone had experience on Fastethernet >> sub-interface problem? >> >> >> >>? ? I have fa0/0 which has a configuration of: >> >> >> >>?interface FastEthernet0/0 >> >>?no ip address >> >>?duplex auto >> >>?speed auto >> >>! >> >>interface FastEthernet0/0.77 >> >>?encapsulation dot1Q 77 >> >>?ip address 20.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 >> >>! >> >>interface FastEthernet0/0.120 >> >>?encapsulation dot1Q 120 >> >>?ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 >> >> >> >>?---------------- >> >> >> >>Router(config)#do sh ip int br >> >>Interface ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?IP-Address ? ? ?OK? Method Status ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ? ?Protocol >> >>FastEthernet0/0 ? ? ? ? ? ?unassigned ? ? ?YES TFTP ? up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ? ?up ? ? ? >> >>FastEthernet0/0.77 ? ? ? ? 20.1.1.1 ? ? ? ? YES NVRAM ?up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ? up ? ? ? >> >>FastEthernet0/0.120 ? ? ? 10.1.1.1 ? ? ? ? ? YES manual up ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >> ? ? ?up ? ? ? >> >> >> >> >> >>As you can see on the output everything is running fine, interfaces are >> up. >> >>Now on the fa0/0.120 (10.1.1.1) it is connected to a switch f0/1. >> >>on the switch also it is configured with vlan 99 with ip address of >> 10.1.1.2 >> >> >> >>when I try to ping from router to switch using the fa0/0.120 (10.1.1.1) >> the output is down. >> >>but when I configure the ip address 10.1.1.1 of the router into the f0/0 >> interface (not the sub-interface) >> >>the ping is successful. >> >> >> >> >> >>? ?Any advice? >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, >> please visit www.ipexpert.com >> >> >> >>Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com <http://www.platinumplacement.com/> >> >> >> >>http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >_______________________________________________ >> >For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com >> > >> >Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com <http://www.platinumplacement.com/> >> > >> >http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs >> > >> > >> > >> >> End of CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 77, Issue 51 >> *************************************** >> > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:39:50 +0000 >From: George Leslie ><[email protected]> >To: IPExpert Study List ><[email protected]> >Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] IPX Workbook 3 Lab 1 >Task 9.4 >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > > > > > > >Hi all, > >>Just to check I?m not going mad. > >IPX WB3, Lab 1 , Config Section, Taks >9.4 > >We are tasked with configuring a zone based firewall, in >which we are >strictly told which protocols are allowed to leave the ?inside? >zone to the >?outside? zone. > >NTP is not included as one of them. > >But in earlier task >6.1, we had to configure Cat 2 to use >the ?outside? R7 as its NTP server. > >>Won?t the config for the ZBF break the config for NTP, as >Cat 2?s NTP to R7 >will be blocked? > >Regards, George. > > > > > > > >>------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 >11:45:40 -0500 >From: marc abel <[email protected]> >To: George Leslie <[email protected]> >Cc: IPExpert Study List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] IPX Workbook 3 Lab 1 Task 9.4 >Message-ID: > <canyr4zkb1tax0jkvqmmsiuhyqkoqiv31b9xggtpbdfkmnsd...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > >Did you lab it? > >On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, George Leslie < >[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Just to check I?m not going mad. >> >> IPX WB3, Lab 1 , Config Section, Taks 9.4 >> >> We are tasked with configuring a zone based firewall, in >> which we are strictly told which protocols are allowed to leave the >> ?inside? >> zone to the ?outside? zone. >> >> NTP is not included as one of them. >> >> But in earlier task 6.1, we had to configure Cat 2 to use >> the ?outside? R7 as its NTP server. >> >> Won?t the config for the ZBF break the config for NTP, as >> Cat 2?s NTP to R7 will be blocked? >> >> Regards, George. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com >> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >> >> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs >> > > > >-- >Marc Abel >CCIE #35470 >(Routing and Switching) > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:17:49 +0000 >From: George Leslie <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]>, IPExpert Study List > <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] IPX Workbook 3 Lab 1 Task 9.4 >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > >I put a rule for NTP into the ZBF policy map as I considered it one of those clear "ask the proctor" moments!! I started by not putting this rule in, and NTP seemed happy. But NTP takes so long to cook that I was not confident I would see it break before my proctor labs session ran out!! > Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:45:40 -0500 >Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] IPX Workbook 3 Lab 1 Task 9.4 >From: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >CC: [email protected] > >Did you lab it? > >On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, George Leslie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > >Just to check I?m not going mad. > > > >IPX WB3, Lab 1 , Config Section, Taks 9.4 > > > >We are tasked with configuring a zone based firewall, in > >which we are strictly told which protocols are allowed to leave the ?inside? > >zone to the ?outside? zone. > > > >NTP is not included as one of them. > > > >But in earlier task 6.1, we had to configure Cat 2 to use > >the ?outside? R7 as its NTP server. > > > >Won?t the config for the ZBF break the config for NTP, as > >Cat 2?s NTP to R7 will be blocked? > > > >Regards, George. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com > > > >Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com > > > >http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > > > >-- >Marc AbelCCIE #35470(Routing and Switching) > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:16:41 +0000 >From: Elie Raad <[email protected]> >To: OSL Routing and Switching <[email protected]> >Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] VOL III (Task 2.4) Lab 3 >Message-ID: > <3840b1aaec7edd4caff9def3ad0131b8274e7...@amsprd0104mb146.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >Hello All, > >" Loopback0 interfaces on all routers should not be redistributed into any protocol, but still be reachable in the entire network" > >what i understand is that i am not allowed to redistribute any of the loopbacks. >when looking at the solution , he did redistribute these loopbacks . >maybe i misunderstood the sentence! >Any hint, >thank you all. > > >Elie > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 6 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:19:46 -0500 >From: marc abel <[email protected]> >To: Elie Raad <[email protected]> >Cc: OSL Routing and Switching <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] VOL III (Task 2.4) Lab 3 >Message-ID: > <CANYR4zkRevoYuT5xRRd9hfU5qBfNndM=bzrxc3amtktremx...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >Did he redistribute them? or did he simply advertise them with a network >statement? > >On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Elie Raad <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> " Loopback0 interfaces on all routers should not be redistributed into >> any protocol, but still be reachable in the entire network" >> >> what i understand is that i am not allowed to redistribute any of the >> >> loopbacks. >> when looking at the solution , he did redistribute these >> loopbacks . >> maybe i misunderstood the sentence! >> Any hint, >> thank >> you all. >> >> >> Elie >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information >> regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit >> www.ipexpert.com >> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check >> out >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >> >> >> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs >> > > > >-- >Marc >> Abel >CCIE #35470 >(Routing and Switching) > > >> >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 >> 20:25:33 +0000 >From: Elie Raad <[email protected]> >To: marc abel >> <[email protected]> >Cc: OSL Routing and Switching >> <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] VOL III (Task >> 2.4) Lab 3 >Message-ID: > <3840b1aaec7edd4caff9def3ad0131b8274e7...@amsprd0104mb146.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >Here is a sample redistributing on of router: >router eigrp 1569 >redis rip metr 10000 10 255 1 1500 route-map RIP2EIGRP >distribute-list route-map DENY-from-RIP in > >route-map RIP2EIGRP >set tag 5 >route-map DENY-from-RIP deny 10 >match tag 9 >route-map DENY-from-RIP permit 20 > > i dont see any filtering for the loopbacks in this redistribution! > > >Elie > >________________________________ >From: marc abel [[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:19 PM >To: Elie Raad >Cc: OSL Routing and Switching >Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] VOL III (Task 2.4) Lab 3 > >Did he redistribute them? or did he simply advertise them with a network statement? > >On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Elie Raad <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >Hello All, > >" Loopback0 interfaces on all routers should not be redistributed into any protocol, but still be reachable in the entire network" > >what i understand is that i am not allowed to redistribute any of the loopbacks. >when looking at the solution , he did redistribute these loopbacks . >maybe i misunderstood the sentence! >Any hint, >thank you all. > > >Elie > >_______________________________________________ >For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com<http://www.ipexpert.com> > >Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com<http://www.PlatinumPlacement.com> > >http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > > > >-- >Marc Abel >CCIE #35470 >(Routing and Switching) > > > >End of CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 77, Issue 52 >*************************************** _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
