From: Ludwig Morales (morales_l@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jan 04 2003 - 03:44:01 GMT-3
What? do you mean that 2500's do not support 12.2?
DAMM!! who wants a rack 4 sell?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe" <groupstudy@comcast.net>
To: "'Chuck Church'" <ccie8776@rochester.rr.com>; "'Matthew Poole'"
<matthew.poole@blueyonder.co.uk>; "'cebuano'" <cebu2ccie@cox.net>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:17 PM
Subject: RE: IOS lab version - Was: Clarification needed on BGP and MEDs
> They won't be able to go to 12.2 until all the labs can support it, i.e.
> they have replaced all 2500s with 2600s. Once that is done, you can bet
> you'll see 12.2 regardless of whether it is GD or not.
>
> Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Chuck Church
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:03 PM
> To: Matthew Poole; cebuano; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: IOS lab version - Was: Clarification needed on BGP and MEDs
>
>
> Matt,
>
> Yes, it's still 12.1. BUT, 12.2 is probably within 5 months of
> becoming GD. So the lab would soon follow that, I'd imagine. If I was
> planning to take my lab towards October or so of this year, it might not
> be a bad idea to know some 12.2 features now. Looking at CCO, 12.1
> became GD at 12.1.13 in Feb 2002. But it was on the lab in Nov
> 2001.....
>
> Chuck Church
> CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Poole" <matthew.poole@blueyonder.co.uk>
> To: "cebuano" <cebu2ccie@cox.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:29 AM
> Subject: OT:Re: Clarification needed on BGP and MEDs
>
>
> > I thought the lab only tested on features up to 12.1?
> >
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/learning/le3/le2/le23/le7/learning_ce
> rtif
> > ication_type_home.html#42
> >
> > This is the 2nd post today referring to 12.2, a little worrying ;-).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "cebuano" <cebu2ccie@cox.net>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 3:04 PM
> > Subject: RE: Clarification needed on BGP and MEDs
> >
> >
> > > Well, if you haven't noticed yet, the Parkhurst book you are
> > > referring to has MANY, MANY technical info NOT included, specially
> > > since it was written pre-12.2 and does not present the topic from an
>
> > > ISSUES perspective but simply to test the different commands. Don't
> > > forget to also check its errata on Ciscopress because I've exchanged
>
> > > e-mails with the author to confirm the errors I found both in this
> > > book and the OSPF command reference book as well.
> > >
> > > Regards.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
>
> > > Of Jennifer Bellucci
> > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:38 AM
> > > To: cebuano; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: Clarification needed on BGP and MEDs
> > >
> > > get hold of BGP config and command handbook from ciscopress. Did
> > > wonders for me, after that flick through halabi and JD 2, those
> > > books are good for the
> > > concepts and stuff but the book above gives you what I wanted, to
> find
> > > out
> > > what all the commands actually do, plus reading the command guide
> can
> > > sometimes damage your mental stability.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "cebuano" <cebu2ccie@cox.net>
> > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 5:46 AM
> > > Subject: Clarification needed on BGP and MEDs
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi group.
> > > > I need to clarify my reading of this CCO page.
> > > >
> > > > The following examples demonstrate how the bgp deterministic med
> > > > and
> > > bgp
> > > > always-compare-med commands can influence MED-based path
> > > > selection.
> > > > Note: Cisco Systems recommends enabling the bgp deterministic med
> > > > command in all new network rollouts. For existing networks, the
> > > command
> > > > must either be deployed on all routers at the same time, or
> > > > incrementally, with care to avoid possible internal BGP (iBGP)
> > > > routing loops. For example, consider the following routes for
> > > > network 10.0.0.0/8:
> > > > entry1: AS(PATH) 500, med 150, external, rid 172.16.13.1
> > > > entry2: AS(PATH) 100, med 200, external, rid 1.1.1.1
> > > > entry3: AS(PATH) 500, med 100, internal, rid 172.16.8.4 The order
> > > > in which the BGP routes were received is entry3, entry2, and
> > > > entry1 (entry3 is the oldest entry in the BGP table and entry1 is
> > > > the newest one).
> > > > Note: When BGP receives multiple routes to a particular
> > > > destination,
> > > it
> > > > lists them in the reverse order they were received, from the
> > > > newest to the oldest. BGP then compares the routes in pairs
> > > > starting with the newest entry and moving toward the oldest entry
> > > > (starting at top of
> > > the
> > > > list and moving down). For example, entry1 and entry2 are
> > > > compared.
> > > The
> > > > best of these two is then compared to entry3, and so on.
> > > >
> > > > Example 1: Both Commands Disabled
> > > >
> > > > Entry1 and entry2 are compared first. Entry2 is chosen as the best
>
> > > > of these two because it has a lower router ID. The MED is not
> > > > checked
> > > since
> > > > the paths are from a different neighbor AS.
> > > > Shouldn't example 1 instead say, "Entry2 is chosen as the best of
> > > these
> > > > two because it has an OLDER received path"?
> > > > Step 10 of the BGP Bestpath Selection states.
> > > > "When both paths are EXTERNAL, prefer the OLDEST path." Isn't
> > > > Entry2 "older" than Entry1? Or is something wrong with my
> > > > understanding of this English?
> > > >
> > > > TIA.
> > > > Elmer
> > > >
> > > > BTW - do you guys/gals have a recommendation on very good lab
> > > scenarios
> > > > to bring the true IOS behavior of these different BGP "knobs" to
> > > > life? There are so many changes to the 12.2 release that it makes
> > > > me not
> > > want
> > > > to dwell too much on Halabi's book. I wish Doyle had THREE
> > > > chapters on this instead of two (pity he spent three chapters on
> > > > Multicast
> > > instead).
> > > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > .
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Feb 01 2003 - 07:33:41 GMT-3