From: Omer Ansari (omer@ansari.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 11:31:50 GMT-3
Chang,
I agree with you. In fact, A and B are not running ISIS in the first
place.
Do also comment on Q.6. the answer should be under the eigrp
configuration, not under the ISIS configuration right?
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, ying c wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone explain why the solution provided for page
> 799 question 5 EIGRP/ISIS redistribution in page 961
> is needed?
>
> In page 961, Doyle explains that we don't need to do
> anything when redistribute from ISIS into EIGRP,
> because EIGRP external routes have higher AD 170. I
> have no problems with this part. However, when we
> redistribute from EIGRP into ISIS, he raises route
> coming from EIGRP domain to 170, is this necessary? I
> cannot see why we need it, because we redistribute
> from a lower AD domain (EIGRP AD = 90) into a higher
> AD domain (ISIS AD = 115). It seems to me that with or
> without the distance manipulation added in page 961 we
> should not see any differences in the routing table.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something here.
>
> Thanks,
> Chang
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> Commercial lab list: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/commercial.html
> Please discuss commercial lab solutions on this list.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:46 GMT-3