From: Eric Fairfield (ericfair@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Oct 25 2000 - 16:39:39 GMT-3
That is not true. I gave the options to the proctor and explained my
reasons why one over the other in regards to a route showing and
reachability. The question was well defined and so was his answer. No sync
= +x points. Worked for me with out the hassles of figuring out the other
way.
----- Original Message -----
From: Foster, Kristopher <KFoster@C1Communications.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 10:25 AM
Subject: RE: Loosing marks for extra commands
> If you use 'no synchronization' in your BGP config's you will not get the
> marks.
>
> Kris,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McNutt, Steve [mailto:Steve.McNutt@ahlcorp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 9:57 AM
> To: 'Shaun Nicholson'; ccielab
> Subject: RE: Loosing marks for extra commands
>
>
> I'm dying to know too, because there are some things I do as a matter of
> habit that may or may not be needed in some situations, but they save time
> by freeing me up to concentrate on other things. some examples:
>
> using frame maps for for everything and not depending on inverse-arp.
> turning off auto-summary on routing protocols (i'll tell you when to
> summarize!! hehe)
> unless a specific requirement I usually turn off synchronization for BGP.
> if the practice scenario gives me some wiggle room on statics (like only
> specifying that I can't create a default route) I create null routes for
> summary addresses.
>
> I can do without these things, but it really speeds setup and
> troubleshooting because I've eliminated some problematic features up
front.
>
>
> Of course I'm also the Ethernet Nazi at work and I will turn off any port
> that has an unlabled cable, no port description, or is set to
autonegotiate.
> Better for it to not work at all than to have people coming to me with
crazy
> problems all the time.
>
> -steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shaun Nicholson [mailto:Shaun.Nicholson@kp.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:44 AM
> To: ccielab
> Subject: Loosing marks for extra commands
>
>
> This may be a NDA violation but I read here on this group a few weeks ago
> that you can loose marks for using extra unnessesary commands that were
not
> needed. I dont know if this is true or not can anyone shed some light on
> this statement.
>
> For example I like to remove any chance of frame relay inverse arp working
> so I use the no frame-relay inverse-arp command and then do frame maps
from
> my hub router to all my spokes and then my spokes to my hub and then to
the
> spokes. Would this be considered extra commands? is this something the
> proctor could answer on the day if its an NDA issue?
>
> Anyone able to help? Please dont shoot yourself in the foot if it is and
NDA
> issue just dont answer.
>
> Shaun
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:30 GMT-3