From: Jack Heney (jheneyccie@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Oct 25 2000 - 16:33:56 GMT-3
Hang on a second...
>Keep in mind that if you do no redistribution of IGP into BGP then you
>will not be able to see the routes in the BGP table as BGP and IGP are
>not synced.
Are you sure about this? I thought the point of synchronization was that in
an environment where transit service is being provided and some of the
transit router are not running BGP, we need to make sure that the transit
routers are not dropping traffic because they don't have as much information
as the BGP routers. This would seem to indicate that BGP needs to be
redistributed into the IGP....Maybe I'm completely wrong, or maybe I'm
misunderstanding your statement. Could you, perhaps, give an example?
Thanks,
Jack
>From: mark salmon <masalmon@cisco.com>
>Reply-To: mark salmon <masalmon@cisco.com>
>To: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: Re: Loosing marks for extra commands
>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:09:21 -0700
>
>I suppose it depends on the scenario presented on the exam. It is my
>understanding that unless something is PROHIBITED, it is ALLOWED as long
>as it achieves the results asked for. For example, I have seen
>scenarios in a practice lab environment (e.g. fatkid.com ) where static
>routes are PROHIBITED, there are other scenarios where it is specfically
>allowed.
>
>Keep in mind that if you do no redistribution of IGP into BGP then you
>will not be able to see the routes in the BGP table as BGP and IGP are
>not synced.
>
>"Foster, Kristopher" wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I should have been more clear. The no sync command is viewed in
>the
> > same light as static routes (it takes half the fun out! :D). This
>tidbit
>
>--
>
>
>
>Mark Salmon
>Network Support Engineer - SBC OP HQ
>Cisco Systems Inc
>8735 W. Higgins Road Suite 300
>Chicago IL 60631
>Phone:773-695-8235
>Pager:800-365-4578
>email: masalmon@cisco.com
>Empowering The Internet Generation.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:30 GMT-3