From: Sam.MicroGate@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu Jun 06 2002 - 16:07:31 GMT-3
The key word for passing is "MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS" It is not best
practice solution, not most scalable solution, not the most resilient
solution, not ... whatever solution. The proctor is going to grade your lab
based on meeting the requirements. I learned this the hard way.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Taylor [mailto:mike.taylor@mail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:39 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: A question regarding interpretation
Hi everyone,
Here's an example of a scenario I encounter quite frequently. It is in
regards to my interpretation of the requirement.
While working on a practice lab, I was asked "On R7, inject into BGP all
routes learned via OSPF type-5 LSAs.....[and] never advertise these routes
to
R5." Topology is as follows:
R8 ---ebgp--- R7 ---ebgp--- R5 ---ibgp ---> "rest of the lab routers."
My solution: tag the routes with a community-ID during injection from OSPF
to
BGP and filter these tagged routes via route-map to peer R5. This worked
just
fine. You should also know that in the lab, there were never any routes
injected into BGP from R8, and the only routes injected into BGP from R7
were
these OSPF routes.
After lab completion, I checked to see how I did on everything and was
surprised to find their solution to the same problem: access-list 1 permit
any, route-map filter deny 10 - match ip address 1, neighbor R5 route-map
filter out. They denied all possibility of any routes passing via BGP from
R7
to R5.
When I perform these labs, I find myself providing solutions that will allow
the network to "grow" - even if there might be no need for it in a
particular
lab. Concerning the actual test (which for me is coming up in a few weeks),
would you recommend I take the "satisfy the lab requirements. period."
approach as they did in my scenario? Or, is it acceptable to provide a
solution such as I did? Opinions welcome.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:27 GMT-3