IEOC - INE's Online Community

Welcome to INE's Online Community - IEOC - a place for CCIE and CCENT candidates to connect, share, and learn. Our Online Community features CCIE forums and discussions for all tracks including Routing & Switching, Voice, Security, Service Provider, Wireless,, and Storage. Through these online communities you can discuss your questions with thousands of your peers, hundreds of CCIE's and INE's own team of world renowned CCIE instructors and authors, Brian Dennis - Quintuple CCIE #2210, Brian McGahan – Triple CCIE #8593, Petr Lapukhov - Quad CCIE #16379, and Mark Snow - Dual CCIE #14073.


Page 1 of 203 (2028 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
  • Re: TCP/UDP activities

    Not sure I am understanding the question. TCP does not stop anything, but it is polite and shakes hands to establish the connection. Before an http client can get data, it needs to request it with a GET command. Then the server will send the data (and expect acks for data sent). Here is a packet capture. Look at the info column to see the handshake
    Posted to CCNA (Forum) by JoeM on 01-18-2017
  • Re: Dual-home PEs importing their own RT back to CE?

    If you are only dealing with a single CE, I cannot think of a scenario where there is an advantage to importing the same RT (from and to same CE device). But by default, it still should not be an issue, because the CE should not import routes when it sees its own AS number. The commands allow-as or as-override would be explicit commands that would only
    Posted to CCIE Routing & Switching Technical (Forum) by JoeM on 01-12-2017
  • Re: Task 8.1. The ACL needing WWW or WWW syn?

    Hi RD, If this was for points, I think either way would fulfill the task. The workbook solution is just more explicit about what we are trying to do. It is the 4th access-list line that we are wanting to log after the 1918 filtering.
    Posted to Full Scale Lab 2 (Forum) by JoeM on 01-12-2017
  • Re: Dual-home PEs importing their own RT back to CE?

    Hi Martin, I am trying to follow what you are seeing. Output? A BGP expert like Peety can give a better answer, and I would love to hear the advantages/disadvantages. I don't see a problem with the export/imports being the same for CE's within a single customer's network -- especially if there are not a lot of prefixes being traded between
    Posted to CCIE Routing & Switching Technical (Forum) by JoeM on 01-11-2017
  • Re: BGP Best Path Selection vs IP Route

    I also would like to see the more descriptive output. show ip bgp show ip route Thanks
    Posted to CCIE Routing & Switching Technical (Forum) by JoeM on 12-31-2016
  • Re: tshoot 2

    Yes. It is interesting that Cisco has proxy-arp on by default. Juniper has it disabled.
    Posted to CCNP (Forum) by JoeM on 12-27-2016
  • Re: DMVPN Phase 1 with EIGRP

    Hi Zee. Thanks for this clarification. It seems that you are correct. This was a great way to begin my DMVPN review. Began my lab with phase-1, and I was able to get an overlay OSPF config working with minimal NHRP statements. I have seen no tunnel flaps and routing is working correctly. example spoke 1 of 4: interface Tunnel100 ip address
    Posted to IPSec VPN (Forum) by JoeM on 12-27-2016
  • Re: tshoot 2

    Welshy, If you are looking to study with someone, I am working on my re-written, and I am reviewing everything again. I do not think that a client will maintain more than one mac-address per IP address (although one-mac can have multiple ip addresses). Below is a test that I just did with GLBP (good practice for written :-) GLBP uses a different virtual
    Posted to CCNP (Forum) by JoeM on 12-20-2016
  • Re: tshoot 2

    Hi Welshy, It is good to see you on the forum. Hope your studies are going well. Thanks for clearing this this up. Yes, I fell into the trap, and ended up studying DHCP Address Conflict Detection. ;-) What I see in WireShark underneath the warning message is "Expert Info" meaning wireshark input. [quote user="wireshark output"]
    Posted to CCNP (Forum) by JoeM on 12-19-2016
  • Re: Cisco Virl won't be providing 30 node or Academic license as of 1/1/17

    [quote user="Phoenix"] I let my VIRL license to expire. I dont feel worth of spending on VIRL. Mainly complicated to setup, difficult to operate and capped number of nodes. [/quote] I kind of agree with this. For $200 it should have worked smoothly. I have heard similar remarks from other VIRL users. I bought it and was planning to use the
    Posted to Cisco Hardware (Forum) by JoeM on 12-18-2016
Page 1 of 203 (2028 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
IEOC CCIE Forums Internetwork Expert CCIE Training
About IEOC | Terms of Use | RSS | Privacy Policy
© 2010 Internetwork Expert, Inc. All Rights Reserved