Odom's 200-101 book, possible error?

Hi everyone,

I think I found an error in this book that isn't in the official errata, and I'd like some other opinions.

On page 366, it's talking about the speeds of T-carriers, and the sentence says:

'Basically, at slower speeds, you get any multiple of 64Mbps, up to T1 speeds'

Correct me if I'm wrong, but should that not be 64Kbps, and not Mbps?

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

shyguyIT

Yes it should be 64 Kbps, I just finished reading over that chapter and noticed the typo as well.

DoubleNNs

There are plenty of typos and errors in the the new Odom CCNA library. None of them too glaring. But I could tell that the book had been rushed because of the drastic changes in the objectives for the new CCNA revision.

None of it is too glaring, once again, but you might want to check out the errata online.

helios

DoubleNNs wrote: »

There are plenty of typos and errors in the the new Odom CCNA library. None of them too glaring. But I could tell that the book had been rushed because of the drastic changes in the objectives for the new CCNA revision.

None of it is too glaring, once again, but you might want to check out the errata online.

I had a look at the errata, but it wasn't in there. I emailed the publisher with the error, and someone actually took time to write back, all within 20 minutes.

matai

I noticed that too last week!

bbarrick

When he just released his ICND1 100-101 book I was talking with Mr. Odom on a regular basis about possible errors via his Facebook page. Send him a message, he really appreciates any errors you find.

helios

bbarrick wrote: »

When he just released his ICND1 100-101 book I was talking with Mr. Odom on a regular basis about possible errors via his Facebook page. Send him a message, he really appreciates any errors you find.

I emailed the publisher using their process for reporting errors, and the next day, Wendell had actually emailed me himself with an explanation. He seems like a really nice guy.