From: Joseph D. Phillips (josephdphillips@fastmail.us)
Date: Thu Sep 16 2004 - 13:15:27 GMT-3
I believe either would have met the requirements. Perhaps there is
mention of only one IA in the routing table. A total-stub area blocks
all LSA 3's except for the default route, which is an LSA 3.
Edwards, Andrew M wrote:
>All-
>I have a few questions or clarifications I wanted to throw out to the
>list from lab 1. I'm looking for feedback or comments.
>section 2.2
>Ensure only the types of LSA propagated within OSPF area 2 are type 1,
>2, and 3.
>The answer key indicates that area 2 should be totally stubby area (use
>no-summary on ABR). Doesn't a stub area also meet the requirements?
>-------------
>section 2.2
>Ensure that no host routes are propagated throughout the network at this
>point of the lab.
>The virtual-template and virtual-access interface /32 routes are not
>propagated. They are just in the routing table as connected on R1, R4,
>and R6.
>Without the 'no peer neighbor' statement, if you go to R6, it sees
>10.100.101.2/32 (attached) and 10.100.100.0 255.255.255.240 (via R4).
>Doesn't this meet the "not propagating host routes" requirement? Without
>using the 'no peer neighbor' statement, the lab already doesn't
>propagate the 10.100.101.2/32 from R6 to anywhere just like it doesn't
>propagate the /32 from R4 or R1 point to point interfaces.
>I guess the question is, how are the /32 host routes considered
>propagated propagated by any router when they are directly connected? I
>could see if the requirement was to ensure that no host routes were in
>the routing table.....? Did anyone else have this same
>understanding/confusion as I did?
>
>
>Andy
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:45 GMT-3