Jason Thanks got the info We are a partner and I seem to remember the name Vic Nunes so I will reach out to him
Thanks Tom Jennings On Sep 26, 2011, at 12:00 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Send CCIE_Wireless mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://onlinestudylist.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ccie_wireless > 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_Wireless digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: CCIE Wireless LAB Space (Jason Boyers) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:55:33 -0400 > From: Jason Boyers <[email protected]> > To: Tom <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Wireless] CCIE Wireless LAB Space > Message-ID: > <CAL0_Z+uvgk=ctxrgs_tjfmn-bbxt3dscp5cgs63xf5xq2n0...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Tom > > It really depends on what you are looking for for "lab" space. Proctor Labs > offers rack rental which matches the workbooks that we have developed (and > continue to develop - the CCIEWv2 update will be coming shortly!) If you > are a Cisco partner, you may want to contact Vic Nunes (Cisco Wireless > Channel SE in the Philly area) about what equipment is available down there. > > Of course, you could start out with a 3560 PoE switch, 2106 WLC and a few > APs (such as one 1130 and a couple of autonomous 1240s.) The 2106 can run > 7.0 code. And it provides most of the features that would be on the lab, > so it's a good place to start. It will not be nearly enough for your full > training program, but it covers the basics for knowledge. The lab > configuration requirements (referring to the blueprint) and amount of > equipment on the lab, however, means that at some point you'll need to deal > with a much larger rack. But, it can be a place to start, especially on a > budget. > > > Jason Boyers - CCIE #26024 (Wireless) > Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. > Mailto: *[email protected] > * > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Tom <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello All >> I joined this list a month ago and have enjoyed reading the messages I have >> received to date >> >> I am looking for some LAB space which I could use and curious if anyone >> could make some suggestions >> >> I am in the US in the Philadelphia Area >> >> I have passed my written in July >> >> Any help would be appreciated >> >> Thanks >> Tom Jennings >> >> >> On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:00 PM, [email protected]: >> >>> Send CCIE_Wireless mailing list submissions to >>> [email protected] >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://onlinestudylist.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ccie_wireless >>> 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_Wireless digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: CCIE_Wireless Digest, Vol 30, Issue 16 (Jason Boyers) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:20:16 -0400 >>> From: "Jason Boyers" <[email protected]> >>> To: "'Aaron Leonard'" <[email protected]> >>> Cc: [email protected], >>> [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Wireless] CCIE_Wireless Digest, Vol 30, Issue >>> 16 >>> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>> Just to come back on this, after some testing and discussion with Aaron, >>> here's where we are with CDP: >>> >>> 1) Access ports (no matter the device) - sent untagged and therefore >>> received on whatever VLAN the access port is associated with >>> 2) Trunk ports (except for WLCs and 4.2 APs) - sent on VLAN 1, whether or >>> not this is the native VLAN and whether or not it is in a spanning-tree >>> forwarding state >>> 3) WLC and 4.2 based APs - sent untagged, and thus are associated with >> the >>> native VLAN, whatever that may be >>> >>> Cisco has done work on the APs since 4.2 which resulted in the change for >>> lightweight APs (apparently it was causing issues for PoE, particularly >> with >>> the 1250s.) The WLCs (as of 7.0.116.0) are the only devices in the mix >> that >>> are using the native VLAN for CDP. >>> >>> Thanks Aaron for your help and clarification on this! >>> >>> Jason Boyers - CCIE #26024 (Wireless) >>> Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. >>> Mailto: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Aaron Leonard [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:31 PM >>> To: Jason Boyers >>> Cc: [email protected]; >>> [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Wireless] CCIE_Wireless Digest, Vol 30, Issue 16 >>> >>> Inline: >>> >>> On 9/21/2011 2:58 PM, [email protected] (Jason Boyers) wrote: >>>> Thank you for the clarification. In looking at various documents, >>>> there is a lot of confusion. From what you are stating: >>>> >>>> Access Port - sent on the VLAN for which interface is configured >>> >>> Well, if it's an access port (untagged), then there *is* no VLAN (not >> from >>> the perspective of the AP at any rate.) So the AP just sends the CDP >> packet >>> out untagged (as it sends *all* packets), in that case. >>> >>> A *switch* has a notion of what VLAN if any is configured on an access >> port, >>> but an *AP* does not. >>> >>>> Trunk Port - sent on VLAN 1, whether or not VLAN 1 is tagged and >>>> whether or not VLAN 1 is allowed and in a spanning-tree forwarding >>>> state for that port >>> >>> Well, an AP doesn't have the notion of "allowed" VLANs. The VLANs (i.e. >>> subinterfaces of the LAN interface) are either configured or not. >>> >>> But so anyway - the AP *always* sends CDP in VLAN1, *if* its LAN port is >>> configured for VLANs. >>> >>> (Here I am not sure about what if VLAN1 is in a spanning-tree blocked >> state >>> - I would assume then that we would *not* send CDP, but would not wager >> cash >>> on that point.) >>> >>>> Is that another way of putting it? That is different than my >>>> understanding has been (where CDP is sent untagged on an access or >>>> trunk port - period.) >>> >>> Yep, the notion that CDP is always sent untagged is quite incorrect. (A >>> notion that is widely held within Cisco as well, in fact by many >> developers >>> :) >>> >>> I would like here to post a reference to the CDP spec but unfortunately >> it >>> is confidential. As I reread it for the n'th time, I can now see that >> there >>> are two alternate possible interpretations: >>> >>> One is that, for an 802.1q encapsulated link, it should always be sent >> with >>> tagged in VLAN 1, and the other is that, for a link that has both tagged >> and >>> untagged frames, it should be sent untagged. >>> >>> Unfortunately, different implementations have adopted different >>> interpretations. The AP's interpretation is the VLAN 1 one. >>> >>>> I just did a packet capture on an interface connected to a WLC. That >>>> interface only allows specified VLANs (which don't include VLAN 1) and >>>> a separate native VLAN (which is 999 in this case, which doesn't even >>>> exist as a VLAN on the switch.) In the packet capture, CDP was tagged >>>> with VLAN 999 when coming from the WLC. Everything else was tagged >>>> with the Management VLAN (no clients currently on the WLC.) >>> >>> Well, I was speaking specifically about (WNBU) IOS, *not* about the WLC. >>> With the WLC, all bets are off. >>> >>> I don't quite get your scenario here. You say that your native VLAN is >> 999, >>> and that you see CDP tagged with VLAN 999 coming from the WLC. >>> Now, on the WLC, you configure a "native" (i.e. *untagged*) VLAN as 0 ... >> so >>> you're saying that you have some interface configured on the WLC as >> tagged >>> VLAN 999? Some interface other than the management interface? >>> >>> I'm skeptical of this ... its sounds more like maybe the WLC just >> transmits >>> CDP as untagged. >>> >>>> I appreciate your help in working through this, both for understanding >>>> as well as for proper documentation on Cisco's site. >>> >>> It sounds like what I *really* need to do is to drive some consensus at >>> Cisco on this point ... although higher priority (of course) is to study >> for >>> my imminent CCIE lab ... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Aaron >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CCIE_Wireless mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://onlinestudylist.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ccie_wireless >>> >>> >>> End of CCIE_Wireless Digest, Vol 30, Issue 19 >>> ********************************************* >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > </archives/ccie_wireless/attachments/20110926/3d631708/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > CCIE_Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://onlinestudylist.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ccie_wireless > > > End of CCIE_Wireless Digest, Vol 30, Issue 22 > ********************************************* _______________________________________________ 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
