From: Jason Sinclair (sinclairj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 01:14:11 GMT-3
Omer,
Again this comes down to the requirements of the lab and whether you are
explicitly excluded or requested to do something. In the real world you
would never do this, and with the pressure of the lab and the mistakes that
will be made, I would not advocate doing this. The more sane (or pretty)
your routing tables the easier it will be for you to identify issues and
resolve problems.
Jason Sinclair CCIE #9100
Manager, Network Control Centre
POWERTEL
55 Clarence Street,
SYDNEY NSW 2000
AUSTRALIA
office: + 61 2 8264 3820
mobile: + 61 416 105 858
email: sinclairj@powertel.com.au
-----Original Message-----
From: Omer Ansari [mailto:omer@ansari.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2002 09:11
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: route-feedback: shall i worry about design aesthetics or not
All,
when you have already set up redistribution...and then sometimes when you
add new vlsm routes say in EIGRP/OSPF as per instructions, it has happened
that if they were of a different classful network, these vlsm routes get
redist'ed into RIP/IGRP and get redist'ed back again as classful FLSM routes
now things are working fine as the longer mask routes are pointing into
the classless RP, but these ugly routes are still around in the Route
table pointing into the RIP/IGRP domains, clearly not pretty.
my question is, is a pretty routing table also important from the lab's
grading perspective, or if i know things are working, i should be content
and not worry about beautifying the route table.
Omer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:40 GMT-3