From: Roberts, Larry (Larry.Roberts@expanets.com)
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 01:05:39 GMT-3
He is right. I can assure you as well. I know a "someone" who looked for the
particular phrase just because they see this come up so often. They saw it!
Can say who because of the NDA ;)
Thanks
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris [mailto:clarson52@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:47 PM
To: Dave Stoddard; 'Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)'; 'George Bekmezian';
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Cc: malcolm@lanbase.com
Subject: Re: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
Well, if anybody did say they saw it in the lab there would be those who
flame about a violation of NDA and prolly start a whole new worthless thread
that has gone on here before round and round.
You will see the exact wording when you get to the lab, I can assure you!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Stoddard" <dstoddard@thrupoint.net>
To: "'Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)'" <JPaglia@NA2.US.ML.com>; "'George
Bekmezian'" <george@bekmezian.com>; <dstoddard@thrupoint.net>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Cc: <malcolm@lanbase.com>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:28 PM
Subject: RE: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
> Guys, it does not work in ALL situations. I'm not going to waste
> further time explaining the specific situations that it will NOT work
> in.
>
> As far as answering my 'specific' question "Where exactly did you see
these
> directions? What was the specific wording?" Your answer doesn't fly
> in
my
> book. Groupstudy does not have directions of any kind concerning the
> CCIE R/S lab, it's a discussion group. Directions can ONLY by given
> by Cisco. My question can only be answered by.....
>
> 1> a Cisco URL
> 2> First hand experience from someone where they specifically asked
> 2> this
> question of a proctor & the proctor gave a specific answer, as we know
they
> do not.
> 3> Someone with first hand knowledge that the exam stated this
> requirement/boundary in writing on the exam or on the white board in
> the lab.
>
> If anyone has an knowledge that was obtained directly from Cisco,
> please share. Otherwise, lets end this thread.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell) [mailto:JPaglia@NA2.US.ML.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 5:38 PM
> To: 'George Bekmezian'; dstoddard@thrupoint.net;
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: malcolm@lanbase.com
> Subject: RE: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
>
>
> I think all this rhetoric has convinced me that using secondary
> addresses and the like is the way to go unless specified otherwise. No
> asking, the result is immediate, no worries of the dreaded 'null0'
> ruining your day.
>
> Besides, it works.
>
> John
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Bekmezian [SMTP:george@bekmezian.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 8:22 PM
> > To: dstoddard@thrupoint.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Cc: malcolm@lanbase.com
> > Subject: RE: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
> >
> > It's common knowledge. Read through the groupstudy archives.
> >
> > George
> >
> > |-----Original Message-----
> > |From: Dave Stoddard [mailto:dstoddard@thrupoint.net]
> > |Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 5:06 PM
> > |To: 'George Bekmezian'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > |Cc: malcolm@lanbase.com
> > |Subject: RE: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
> > |
> > |
> > |Where exactly did you see these directions? What was the specific
> > |wording?
> > |
> > |-----Original Message-----
> > |From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf
> > |Of George Bekmezian
> > |Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:12 PM
> > |To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > |Cc: malcolm@lanbase.com
> > |Subject: RE: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
> > |
> > |
> > |Well, I recommend against it, since the directions specifically
> > |state the null0 routes from summarization are not allowed. You go
> > |ahead and take your chances though.
> > |
> > |
> > |George
> > |
> > ||-----Original Message-----
> > ||From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> > ||Behalf Of Warner, Thomas S
> > ||Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:45 PM
> > ||To: 'Malcolm Price'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > ||Subject: RE: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
> > ||
> > ||
> > ||Malcolm
> > ||
> > ||I have asked that question and the proctor said that it is OK to
> > ||have the summaries to NULL0 in your RT that are generated by OSPF
> > ||area range commands.
> > ||
> > ||
> > ||Tom Warner
> > ||Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
> > ||Computing and Network Services
> > ||email: mailto:thomas.s.warner@lmco.com
> > ||
> > ||
> > ||
> > ||-----Original Message-----
> > ||From: Malcolm Price [mailto:malcolm@lanbase.com]
> > ||Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 5:18 PM
> > ||To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > ||Subject: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
> > ||
> > ||
> > ||Guys,
> > ||
> > ||Has anyone asked the proctor if you are allowed to have a null0
> > ||route in your RT which has been generated by a ospf "area x range
> > ||..... " command ?
> > ||
> > ||Seems like the obvious solution to a very gray area :)
> > ||
> > ||Regards,
> > ||Malcolm
> > ||
> > |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:44:05 GMT-3