From: Anthony Pace (anthonypace@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jul 26 2002 - 19:12:56 GMT-3
Sorry I responed to the worng thread. I thought I was int the ATM SCV
thread.
Anthony PAce
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 06:23:15 +0000, "Perminder Grewal"
<percy_gunner@hotmail.com> said:
> anthony
>
> This was down to frame-relay on a physical interace running igrp, by
> default
> split-horizons is disabled, hence route-feedback.
>
>
> Percy
>
>
> >From: "Anthony Pace" <anthonypace@fastmail.fm>
> >Reply-To: "Anthony Pace" <anthonypace@fastmail.fm>
> >To: "Perminder Grewal" <percy_gunner@hotmail.com>, Mark.Snow@newcome.com,
> > ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Re: CCIE Practical Studies, Darth Reid, and Redistribution
> >Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:07:54 +0000
> >
> >So what is it in Split-Horizons which causes the routers not to send
> >each other routes when defined on phisical interfaces? They still would
> >never need to send an advertisemnet out the same interface they learned
> >it from. I saw a debug message where they would see their own
> >advertisment and ignore it. (it scrolled off the screen or I would have
> >printed it) Also, after a while they never sent advertisments at all.
> >That why I was thinking maybe the SVC tore itself down somehow, but an
> >"interesting" ping could wake it up.
> >
> >Anthony Pace
> >
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:01:32 +0000, "Perminder Grewal"
> ><percy_gunner@hotmail.com> said:
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > Also don't forget split-horizon's on the frame-relay for IGRP and DV
> > > protocols. Split horizon is disabled on the physical interface but not
> > > on
> > > sub-if.
> > >
> > > Percy
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Snow, Mark" <Mark.Snow@newcome.com>
> > > >Reply-To: "Snow, Mark" <Mark.Snow@newcome.com>
> > > >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >Subject: CCIE Practical Studies, Darth Reid, and Redistribution
> > > >Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:31:00 -0400
> > > >
> > > >All -
> > > >
> > > >I am having difficulties with Section V of the Lab Practice exam "Darth
> > > >Reid" in Solie's book, CCIE Practical Studies Volume 1.
> > > >I have completed the Lab, and for the most part gotten all the parts to
> > > >work, and have downloaded the answer PDFs from the CiscoPress web site.
> > > >
> > > >I really do not agree with some of the solutions that they give for
> >this
> > > >specific lab, and was wondering if anyone had any insight (maybe
> >someone
> > > >who
> > > >has taken this practice lab) as to why they answer the way they do.
> > > >Also does anyone have any really good ref material (links) for
> > > >redistribution?
> > > >
> > > >Specifically, the answer PDF has most of the routing protocols ALL
> > > >redistributing into each other, (OSPF into IGRP, and IGRP into OSPF,
> >OSPF
> > > >into EIGRP, and EIGRP into OSPF) (even OSPF into RIP on router R3 when
> >the
> > > >lab specifically states NOT to advertise Lab routes onto the backbone -
> >so
> > > >there is no need for this).
> > > >I am also getting a lot of routing loops due to this and right now I am
> > > >clueless.
> > > >
> > > > > Mark Snow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:45 GMT-3