From: diptish doshi (diptishdoshi007@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Aug 31 2004 - 01:58:01 GMT-3
hi team ,
Even i have gone through the whole book ... and im
of the mixed opinion ... that is , the first 3 labs
are excellent .. it has lot of new stuff and makes us
think and the explaination for every step is brillant
... but on the other hand ... the last 3 labs are not
good ... and are not upto the level required and the
explaination for the answers is very vague .... and
the important point is the last 2 labs have more than
50 % of the config same .... and i would suggest that
if anyone is reading this book and is short of time
... then he may miss the last 3 labs ... believe me ..
u wont lose much ... anyways .. that was my opinion
...
Thanx ,
diptish.
--- Cisco Nuts <cisconuts@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John!!
>
> A million apologies.....!!
>
> Nowhere have I said that this book is useless ....
> :-)
>
> My post said Clarification - that's it !!
>
> All I wanted is clarification - if I do this will my
> points get deducted
> and same for if I don't do this.
>
> Have done most if not all the InternetworkExpert
> Labs and having gone
> thru the Brian's training, I was only trying to get
> my self prepared for
> the actual Lab....
>
> Anyone else's comments - please feel free?
>
> Anyone concur - especially the ones from InetExp's
> forums - ??
>
> Sincerely.
>
> >From: "john matijevic" <matijevi@bellsouth.net>
> >To: "'Cisco Nuts'"
> <cisconuts@hotmail.com>,<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >CC:
> <cisco@groupstudy.com> >Subject: RE: Cisco Press R&S
> Lab workbook -
> Clarification needed - ??? >Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004
> 21:11:23 -0400 >
> >Hello Cisconuts, >I am sorry that you feel that
> this book is useless, I
> have spoken with >many people that have done the
> labs including myself
> and they actually >have very good regards for the
> book including those
> that work for Cisco. >From what I gather I am not
> sure if you are taking
> the time to actually >do the lab or are just reading
> it looking for
> mistakes. Some of the >questions that you ask are
> explained in the
> solution details. I think >you are focusing to much
> on the erros and not
> enough on the positives. >Again this book is written
> by a CCIE proctor, I
> think it is a wonderful >resource. I am happy to
> answer your questions as
> I have done all the >labs myself and got all the
> labs to successfully
> work as per the answer >key and their verification.
> I also have a
> solution forum that you can >discuss. Here are the
> responses to your
> questions as far: > >a. why is the loopback >intf.
> configured as
> point-to-point? Nowhere is there a requirement to
> >see >them as a /24
> anywhere?? Have they asked us ?? > >Answer: >how is
> configuring a ip ospf
> network point-to-point a mistake? It >basically
> instead of the route
> appearing as a host route, it appears as >a network
> /24 in this case. It
> can prevent issues further on from >happening. Again
> I had to go to
> expensive bootcamp to learn this lesson. > > >b. why
> does the serial
> >intf. have ip ospf network point-to-point and
> point-to-multipoint
> >configured (ex. on R2) Nowhere have they asked us
> to do that? I feel
> >they >should be left as default network type and
> get that to work.(using
> the >neighbor cmd. and ip os prio 255 on the hub) >
> as 1.1, as far as
> the lab goes it says in the beginning that you are
> >permitted to use
> subinterfaces on R2 interface s0/1. > >Answer: >It
> does not say you have
> to use subinterface on R2, it just says you are
> >permitted. It only says
> that DO Not configure subinterfaces on any other
> >routers. The serial
> interface of R2 has a point-to-point and a
> >multipoint, if you look at
> the topology, there is a point-to-point >network
> from r2 and r3, R2 has a
> multipoint to R5, R1 and R4. So to me >this makes
> logically sense to have
> a point-to-multipoint. And this is >with 2
> interfaces, there is not a ip
> ospf network point-to-point and ip >ospf network
> point-to-multipoint on
> the same interface. Again these are >2 separate
> serial interfaces and if
> you look at the diagram it makes >sense. > > >c. Why
> is the Bri0/0 on R3
> >configured as no peer neighbor-route? >What other
> mistakes do you see on
> Section 2.1? > > >Answer: >The no peer neighbor
> route is configured
> because as you know it will >prevent a host route
> from appearing in the
> routing table and causing >issues. So I am not sure
> how you see it as an
> error in the book. > > > Why is only virtual-link
> configured b/w R3 and
> R2? Why not b/w R3 and >R5? If the FR b/w R3 and R2
> goes down, how will
> vlan33 on R3 get to area >0 on R5?? > >Answer: > >I
> am pretty sure this
> question was answered before basically the lab did
> >not ask for
> redundancy. So that is why you don't see 2
> virtual-links. > >Section 2.3
> asks us to configure Rip only on e0/0 of R4 but the
> >solution does not
> have the passive-interface default command and a no
> >passive-interface
> e0/0 on R4? If this is not needed on R4 then why in
> >the >preceding
> section for Eigrp regarding the same type of
> question, the >passive-intf.
> cmd. is used? > >Answer: >R4 ethernet interface is
> network 140.200.0.0/16
> the other interfaces >loopback and serial are on
> 160.10.0.0/16 network.
> So it is not necessary >to put a passive interface
> and a no passive on
> Ethernet 0, just include >that 140.200.10.0 network
> in the rip process.
> As far as the eigrp >process, you could use the
> passive interface default
> command with the no >pass because there are other
> interfaces in the
> 160.10.0.0/24 network. >You could have also just put
> the interface in the
> routing process for >example, network 160.10.33.0
> 0.0.0.255. As long as
> it doesn't restrict >you from doing so. > >If you
> have further questions
> please don't hesitate to call me to >discuss. Also
> if you need rack time
> I am willing to give out my rack for >FREE!!! And
> don't forget the forum
> area, I also encourage you to sign up >as a member.
> > > >Sincerely, >John
> Matijevic, CCIE #13254, MCSE, CNE, CCEA >CEO
> >IgorTek Inc. >151 Crandon
> Blvd. #402 >Key Biscayne, FL 33149 >Hablo Espanol
> >305-321-6232
> >http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-CCIE > >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> >Cisco Nuts >Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 8:21 PM
> >To:
> ccielab@groupstudy.com >Cc: cisco@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Cisco Press
> R&S Lab workbook - Clarification needed - ??? >
> >Hello,Just finished Lab
> 4 of the Cisco Press R&S Lab Workbook and had >some
> questions: 1. Section
> 1.1 asks to configure FR on R2,R4,R5 & R1 >and >says
> that subinterfaces
> are permitted on R2 only I configured multipoint >on
> R2 but the solution
> uses physical intf. Woudl a mp be valid? 2. >Section
> 2.1 asks to
> configure loopbacks as part of Ospf. And also other
> >Ospf tasks and a
> Virtual link taks requirements. The solution has
> >multiple mistakes (If I
> may have spotted them): a. why is the loopback
> >intf. configured as
> point-to-point? Nowhere is there a requirement to
> >see >them as a /24
> anywhere?? Have they asked us ?? b. why does the
> serial >intf. have ip
> ospf network point-to-point and point-to-multipoint
> >configured (ex. on
> R2) Nowhere have they asked us to do that? I feel
> >they >should be left
> as default network type and get that to work.(using
> the >neighbor cmd.
> and ip os prio 255 on the hub) c. Why is the Bri0/0
> on R3 >configured as
> no peer neighbor-route? They have not asked us to do
> this. >I understand
> why we would use the command but have they asked us
> - No !! >d. Why is
> only virtual-link configured b/w R3 and R2? Why not
> b/w R3 and >R5? If
> the FR b/w R3 and R2 goes down, how will vlan33 on
> R3 get to area >0 on
> R5?? Section 2.3 asks us to configure Rip only on
> e0/0
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Now with 25x more storage than before!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 07:02:50 GMT-3