From: Nathan Casassa (ncasassa@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 28 2001 - 16:17:58 GMT-3
Well, in this case there are hundreds of ways to do the mask and get the
interface enabled into the OSPF process. As long as OSPF is working why
should it matter? Now if you had a bunch of interfaces in the same subnet
and you used a 0.0.0.0 inverse mask for each network statement when you
could have consolidated them all into one mask that would look pretty nasty
when you could have kept your config much cleaner. It has a lot to do with
what the proctor had for breakfast and if he/she got any the night before...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Don Dettmore
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 7:49 AM
> To: CCIE Lab List
> Subject: how anal is the lab grading
>
>
> Question - How nit-picky are the graders of the lab? F0r
> example, something
> occurred to me when I was working in the lab:
>
> 192.168.1.0 /24 ------ R1 ----- 1.1.1.0 /29
>
> When configuring R1 for OSPF, would the following be acceptable:
>
> network 1.1.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0.0.0.0
>
> Or would that be considered wrong because of the 'wrong' (or I
> should say -
> not specific enough) wildcard mask.
>
> Just wondering how anal I must train myself to be.
>
> Don Dettmore
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:55 GMT-3