From: Peter Van Oene (pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue May 29 2001 - 12:22:13 GMT-3
Just a quick point here. I figure I'd have a good shot winning the fastest rou
ter configuration competition and rarely use aliases. However, when I did my l
ab, I trained on a good set of aliases and feel I dramatically improved my time
s. Not only that, I also tended to check more things simply because I could ty
pe them faster. In some situations, you may not type a show ip ospf neigbor wh
ereas an 'si' might just pop out. There's no debating that aliases are faster
and as long as you prep with them, I feel they will add to your chances for suc
cess. If you save 10 minutes over 6 hours, maybe you can squeak out another 2
or 3 points.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 5/28/2001 at 9:11 PM Jeff K. wrote:
>You are exactly right with all the shortcuts. I've never considered using
>aliases because I never use them day to day and know that it will wind up
>slowing me down since I type pretty fast. I know that I can calculate a
>wildcard mask easily and don't have a problem with it. Not my point,
>though... I was merely asking for an explanation as to why using the
>0.0.0.0 area mask would affect route redistribution, which is a question
>that hasn't been answered. In my opinion, it makes good common sense as
>you
>put it to use the 0.0.0.0 mask except when using a wildcard mask that will
>allow you to group multiple interfaces into a single area (i.e., a single
>statement versus multiple statements). Since I always use logic when
>assigning my interface addressing schemes, the all 0 mask allows me to
>double check everything quickly and easily - I know what interface has what
>address and where it should be. Not that the wildcard mask makes that any
>more difficult - just my personal preference. If a bug or other
>'undocumented feature' requires me to use the exact mask, I will be fine as
>well... Anyway, if you have an answer for my original question about why
>the area mask affects route redistribution (what I originally responded
>to),
>please respond. I am more curious than anything.
>
>Thanks,
>
>-Jeff
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Hess" <mahess@home.com>
>To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 7:06 PM
>Subject: RE: how anal is the lab grading
>
>
>> Why not just be smart and use a network statement and the right wildcard
>> mask for every interface that you are putting into OSPF? It seems common
>> sense to me not to try and get too pretty or cut too many corners and
>then
>> get end up with a problem with 15 minutes left just because you were too
>> lazy to be more specific in the first place.
>>
>> Some people advocate the use of too many shortcuts. I see a lot of people
>> advocating shortcuts such as this, using a whold slew of alias commands,
>> etc. Just learn the material and don't try to save seconds when it's the
>> minutes and hours that really matter.
>>
>> Back to my original point, if you cannot at this point calculate a simple
>> wildcard mask then you are going for the wrong certification. Perhaps it
>is
>> not the grading.... :-)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>> Jeff K.
>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 5:27 PM
>> To: Walter Chen; Peter Van Oene; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> Subject: Re: how anal is the lab grading
>>
>>
>> You lost me on the second paragraph. Why would using the 0.0.0.0
>wild-card
>> mask for interface area identification affect redistribution? This mask
>> just allows you to use the interface's address. Obviously the subnet
>mask
>> of your interfaces will affect redistribution, but I don't see how the
>> 0.0.0.0 area mask will. You can definitely mess up your OSPF topology by
>> using the wrong mask (i.e., interfaces in the wrong area, interfaces
>added
>> to OSPF that weren't supposed to be). Let me know what your thoughts are
>on
>> this. Maybe I am forgetting something or am just misunderstanding
>> something.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Jeff
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Walter Chen" <wchen@iloka.com>
>> To: "Peter Van Oene" <pvo@usermail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 3:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: how anal is the lab grading
>>
>>
>> > IMHO, you can use 0.0.0.255 mask if you have other 1.1.1.x/29 networks
>> onthe
>> > same router and they also belong to the same OSPF area. However, if
>these
>> > networks should not be in OSPF or in the same area, you definitely
>should
>> > not use 0.0.0.255 mask. The absolutely sure and correct way is to use
>> > 0.0.0.7 mask for 1.1.1.0/29 network.
>> >
>> > You can use 0.0.0.0 mask in cases if you do not need to redistribute
>> > 1.1.1.0/29 into other routing protocols on this same router. However,
>if,
>> > say, your 192.168.1.0/24 belongs to EIGRP and you want to reistribute
>> > between OSPF and EIGRP, the 1.1.1.0/29 network will NOT be passed into
>> EIGRP
>> > if you have used 0.0.0.0 mask.
>> >
>> > Walter
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Peter Van Oene <pvo@usermail.com>
>> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 9:35 AM
>> > Subject: Re: how anal is the lab grading
>> >
>> >
>> > > Personally, I'd not use 0.0.0.255 in any case, lab or otherwise. The
>> full
>> > 0's mask is the safe and accurate way to add interfaces to the OSPF
>> process
>> > and unless you need to add 20 odd interfaces, I'd suggest you use it.
>As
>> > far as the lab goes, I can attest that lab grading is fair. You
>shouldn't
>> > worry about trivial semantics. If your prepared, you'll likely have a
>> good
>> > idea when you are using an illegal shortcut.
>> > >
>> > > Pete
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>> > >
>> > > On 5/28/2001 at 7:48 AM Don Dettmore wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >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
>> > **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
>> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
>> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
>**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
t
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:56 GMT-3