down-there-line . . . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" To: Sent: 22 June 2002 6:19 pm Subject: Re: STP BPDUs [7:46839]
> The bottom line is that gleaning technical information from a course > outline is not advisable. yes >Saying that they made inaccurate statements is > ridiculous. They didn't make any statements at all. that's quite exactly the point. Your pen-pal behaved as if they did. > There aren't even any > verbs. It is a course outline, for heaven't sake! It's not even a > categorization of concepts. It's a description of what will be covered and > the names of the modules. The theme of the particular module is probably > overhead traffic (both broadcast and multicast). yes. again, your pen-pal missed those points. > > Sorry, but this one is still bothering me. I can't believe how stupid we > get sometimes on this list. ;-) no need to apologize, it obviously bothers other people too. as far as stupidity is concerned, i'm pretty sure that while limits exist regarding how smart a sentient creature can behave, no such limits exist for the lower end of the spectrum. >But, if we insist on still trying to get > something real out of this discussion, then the real advice is be careful > with what you find on the Internet. exactly. > > Priscilla > > At 02:14 PM 6/22/02, Kevin Cullimore wrote: > >withinline > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Brian Backer" > >To: > >Sent: 18 June 2002 7:40 pm > >Subject: RE: STP BPDUs [7:46839] > > > > > > > Priscilla, > > > > > > Quite defensive. Calm down... I was just explaining where I found my > > > information from. I know they are no idiots and that they know exactly > > > what they are talking about > > > >It would be difficult to make that claim on behalf of ALL of them based upon > >your thread of posts. > > > >It probably is indicative of something that, even in an economy as dismal > >for the employee as the current one, the notion of all members of a given > >corporate entity being well-versed in that organization's core competencies > >doesn't scale beyond the smallest of sustainable organizations. > > > >We're also probably going to have to rennounce the ideal whereby the > >"talent" are involved with, and sign off on, all aspect of a given IT > >training curriculum. I'm almost more than certain that people on the list > >formerly involved in producing vendor-sanctioned cisco training materials > >would NOT want to be associated with the entirety of the end product once it > >meandered its way through the rest of the evil corporate empire(I apologize > >that I lack the imagination required to formulate an original way of > >expressing that notion). > > > >The sad reality is that someone NOT teaching the class prepared the > >advertising blurb under discussion. If that is not the case, nrf brought a > >mighty compelling point to bear. > > > > >and I certainly wasn't trying to defame them > > > then in any way. > > > > > > However, you are wrong about you generalization statement. If they were > > > generalizing, they would have put those in the section titled "IP > > > Multicasting" regardless if it's "IP" or not. > > > >I'm unable to find a generalization statement in the post you're replying > >to. What I DO find is an observation concerning common practices surrounding > >data communications technology instruction. Whether or not those practices > >occur is NOT subject to their lack of correspondence to a temporally linear > >sequence of events wherein more general concepts are introduced prior to the > >ones they subsume. Please note that none of these issues depend on the > >validity or lack thereof of the order you allude to. Educational efficacy > >may or may not correspond to such a descriptively compact methodology. > > > >Specifically, an assertion that instructors tend to start off with a > >well-known (as, obviously, contrasted with well-UNDERSTOOD) concept such as > >broadcast as a means of more readily achienving some semblance of > >understanding when they then move on to multicast, as well as the assertion > >that that strategy may have been in play here, are NOT invalidated by the > >observation that if the instructor wished to talk about a more general > >phenomenon before discussing a special case, that they would not have > >succeeded by following the strategy referred to above. > > > > >I personally think it was > > > a mistake which really doesn't warrant any further discussion, > > > >I'm in agreement that the original profound misunderstanding of proprietary > >technology & spanning tree does not warrant further comment, unlike the > >meta-issues subsequently elicited. > > > > >however, > > > according to their reply in an email I sent them, I wonder.... > > > B > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 6:49 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: STP BPDUs [7:46839] > > > > > > At 05:58 PM 6/18/02, nrf wrote: > > > >There it is, I did not engage in a rush to judgment > > > > > > It was still a rush. ;-) > > > > > > >, PMG really are idiots. > > > > > > Why don't you both take the class and see for yourselves? Judging > > > someone > > > on an outline is awfully superficial. The founder of Pine Mountain Group > > > > > > has been doing protocol analysis since the early 1980s. I'm sure he > > > knows > > > what he's doing. > > > > > > Many experts would bundle multicasts and broadcasts together in an > > > informal, overview discussion. I'm sure if you take the class, they will > > > > > > explain that CDP, BPDU, and HSRP Hellos are really sent to a multicast > > > destination, and that should improve performance. Since their classes > > > are > > > protocol analysis classes, you'll see for yourself what is used in the > > > destination MAC address field. > > > > > > By the way, I say "should improve performance," but it might not. A lot > > > of > > > NICs are stupid about multicasts and take them all in even if the > > > applications have not registered to receive them. In other words, they > > > interrupt the host CPU for irrelevant multicasts. So when talking about > > > network performance in a non-detailed fashion, it's OK to group > > > broadcasts > > > and multicasts. > > > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > > > > > > > >""Brian Backer"" wrote in message > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Priscilla, > > > > > > > > > > Please see: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.pmg.com/nai_wireless.htm > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf > > > Of > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 5:06 PM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Re: STP BPDUs [7:46839] > > > > > > > > > > At 04:43 PM 6/18/02, nrf wrote: > > > > > >""Brian Backer"" wrote in message > > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > > > I totally believe you all...just I used to Think that Pine > > > > > > > Mountain group knew what they were talking about and their > > > > > > > web site classifies all of the below as bcast. perhaps > > > > > > > I'll let them know :) > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > > > > > > >Well, then the Pine Mountain Group are a bunch of incompetent > > > idiots. > > > > > > > > > > I've been running into Pine Mountain Group for many years and > > > slightly > > > > > know > > > > > the founder Bill Alderson. They do good work and they do know their > > > > > stuff. > > > > > I doubt they actually made this mistake, but if they did, then it's > > > just > > > > > a > > > > > mistake of overgeneralizing. Perhaps they only have 2 categories, > > > > > broadcast > > > > > and unicast, and don't consider multicasts. > > > > > > > > > > I know I'm normally the one to get all outraged by stupid mistakes, > > > but > > > > > until we can actually see a URL that points to a mistake made by > > > Pine > > > > > Mountain Group, we should reserve judgement. I can't find anything > > > on > > > > > their > > > > > Web site that says that BPDUs, CDP, or HSRP hellos go to a broadcast > > > > > rather > > > > > than a multicast. In fact, I can't find anything on their site at > > > all > > > > > that > > > > > doesn't require a login! ;-) > > > > > > > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I don't want to be mean and harsh. But any company that claims to > > > > > provide > > > > > >expert network services, especially expert training, really should > > > know > > > > > >their protocols. Or at least have the decency to admit that they > > > > > don't > > > > > >know. Stating something that is just flatly wrong is simply > > > > > unforgiveable, > > > > > >especially when it's so easy to look up. > > > > > ________________________ > > > > > > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > > > > http://www.priscilla.com > > > ________________________ > > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > > http://www.priscilla.com > ________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=47239&t=46839 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
