From: Peter van Oene (pvo@usermail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 11:26:34 GMT-3
At 07:39 AM 4/29/2004, Richard Dumoulin wrote:
>Howard, I was talking in general, not BGP. At school I learnt that an
>engineer is a person who engineers ! This is they are not theorists but
>people who make things work, search for workarounds if needed etc ...
>This is what I was meaning, and I was glad to see Richard Davidson provide
>an "engineering" solution to the absurd task.
>You never know when something like this appears.
Most engineers would cringe at the thought of sloppy work arounds. Good
engineering often dictates that one steps back and looks at the root of the
problem.
>One day I had a call from a customer who wanted connectivity between two of
>his sites. He already had the routers installed and I was at home so I could
>telnet from my cable modem. I found that the IOS that was running on one of
>the routers was buggy . The customer wanted connectivity as soon as
>possible. I thought I would configure an IPSec GRE tunnel with a routing
>protocol through it, but RIP was the only option and GRE was not working. I
>was happy to find a utility to both RIP and IPIP tunnels when I only did
>configure them in lab scenarios before !! Are not RIP and IPIP obsolete ? I
>think so but I am not sure it is official.
Rip is likely far from obsolete, at least it's v2 variant. But while I'm
in a hair splitting mode, I'd suggest that what you provided was a
temporary work around that would likely demand a fix in the near term, and
might not prove very stable in the short term either as you obviously left
the client with suspect code and leveraged at least one protocol that
likely hasn't seen must regression testing in the last few years. While
your point is just an example, I think it highlights our philosophical
differences on the network engineering. I think good engineering is rooted
in clean, simple designs that solve problems in a logical and
understandable manner, not corner case work around solutions that confuse
more than they enable.
Pete
>Normally employers and customers don't look at details but only at results.
>That is all they want to see in my opinion,
>
>Regards
>
>--Richard
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:hcb@gettcomm.com]
>Sent: jueves, 29 de abril de 2004 13:18
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Another burning question on BGP
>
>
>At 8:31 AM +0100 4/29/04, Richard Dumoulin wrote:
> >Richard, this is what the employers expect from their engineers, being
> >able to find solutions even if the question is absurd. I believe it is
> >also required in the exam. Well done and thank you for making me learn
> >something today,
> >
> >--Richard
>
>At some level of technical seniority, which reasonably is associated
>with the CCIE, it is reasonable to tell an employer when a proposed
>solution is, in fact, absurd, and unlikely to work.
>
>That is a very different case than the artificiality of the lab.
>Also, do consider the very real possibility it is no longer in the
>actual lab, but practice exams do not yet reflect that Cisco stopped
>making it the default, and Cisco ISP workshops tell you not to use it?
>
>Could someone who has recently taken the BGP course update us on
>whether the course recommends using synchronization under any
>circumstances? Even if they mention it, from personal experience as
>an instructor, there have been features that are in the course purely
>because the TAC gets calls on it, even though Cisco design courses
>specifically say not to use them.
>
>Are you saying a real-world employer is going to insist on your using
>synchronization, when Cisco no longer has it as a default, and
>actually discourages its use anywhere except (possibly) the CCIE lab,
>the IETF has declared the function obsolete, and vendors such as
>Juniper never have supported it?
>
>If so, could you help me understand why an employer is sufficiently
>educated in BGP that they even know synchronization exists, but are
>sufficiently clueless about BGP that they demand it be used?
>
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Edwards, Andrew M [mailto:andrew.m.edwards@boeing.com]
> >Sent: jueves, 29 de abril de 2004 1:05
> >To: Richard Davidson; Peter van Oene; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: RE: Another burning question on BGP
> >
> >
> >Nonetheless, I'm glas I asked and thanks for the response Richard.
> >
> >andy
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Richard Davidson [mailto:rich@myhomemail.net]
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:02 PM
> >To: Peter van Oene; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Re: Another burning question on BGP
> >
> >
> >I agree with Peter. However, if my memory serves me
> >this is what to do.
> >
> >At the ASBR (R1) you are redistributing the BGP routes
> >into ospf and they are comming from the ASBR ospf
> >Router ID R1. Those routes get to R3 and they are
> >from ,,, you guessed it R1. Well stop there and
> >switch to BGP.
> >
> >R1 & R3 both peers with R2 which is a RR. When the
> >BGP route gets to R3 it is from R2 "not R1". Sync
> >will fail.
> >Solution: swap BGP router IDs with R2 and R1. Now R1
> >sends a BGP route as if he is R2. R2 gets it and it
> >sends it as if it is R1 to R3. When R3 sees the BGP
> >route is from the R1 BGP Router ID and the OSPF route
> >is from the R1 ospf Router ID it will sync.
> >
> >---------------------
> >{R1}---{R2}----{R3} |
> > |
> > AS1 |
> >---------------------
> >--- Peter van Oene <pvo@usermail.com> wrote:
> >> The short answer is that this is an @#$@'ing
> >> ridiculous scenario that is a
> >> complete waste of your time. If Cisco wants to test
> >> on it, then shame on
> >> them for forcing you to study such a moronic topic.
> >> There is nothing
> >> anywhere near a practical requirement for such a
> >> topology and
> >> synchronization is years more outdated than many of
> >> the already deprecated
> >> items that have found space on the CCIE lab.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 12:39 PM 4/28/2004, Edwards, Andrew M wrote:
> >> >I'm trying to understand methods to keep
> >> synchronization on in BGP and
> >> >provide BGP to OSPF redistribution with route
> >> reflectors.
> >> >
> >> >You know the problem where the route reflector
> >> server receives an update
> >> >from a route reflector client that is
> >> redistributing BGP to OSPF.
> >> >
> >> >When the route reflector server gets the update, it reflects that
> >> update >to all other RR clients but changes the BGP ID to
> >> itself.
> >> >
> >> >Obviously the other BGP RR clients get the BGP
> >> update but the OSPF
> > > >router ID and BGP ID do not match on the clients so
> >> the BGP route is not
> >> >marked
> >> >As a best path ">"
> >> >
> >> >So the question I have is what methods are
> >> available to make this work
> >> >with synchronization on and using route reflectors?
> >> >
> >> >Is the answer go to full mesh or transfer to confederations?
> >> >
> >> >I'm stumped on how to change the BGP router-id to
> >> the originators BGP
> >> >router ID on the RR server.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for the input... or clearing up my
> >> confusion.
> >> >
> >> >Andy
> >> >
> >>
> >>______________________________________________________________________
> >>_
> >> >Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your
> >> study materials from:
> >> >http://shop.groupstudy.com
> >> >
> >> >Subscription information may be found at:
> >> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >>
> >>
> >_______________________________________________________________________
> >> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your
> >> study materials from:
> >> http://shop.groupstudy.com
> >>
> >> Subscription information may be found at:
> >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> >=====
> >Richard Davidson
> >Yahoo IM: r1davidson
> >e-mail rich@myhomemail.net
> >
> >_______________________________________________________________________
> >Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> >http://shop.groupstudy.com
> >
> >Subscription information may be found at:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >_______________________________________________________________________
> >Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> >http://shop.groupstudy.com
> >
> >Subscription information may be found at:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >_______________________________________________________________________
> >Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> >http://shop.groupstudy.com
> >
> >Subscription information may be found at:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
>http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
>http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:57 GMT-3