From: Anthony Sequeira (terry.francona@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Nov 24 2005 - 10:48:41 GMT-3
Hi Zouta!
Thanks so much for your input - yeah this is a real dilemma. I have yet to
figure out a solution.....
Regarding your comment on the Workbook Vendors - if I were a Proctor - I
would be a consistent reader of vendor workbooks - why? Well - to make sure
I create Lab Tasks that transcend the configurations consistently shown in
those workbooks. In doing so - I make sure the candidate really understands
the underlying technologies.
On 11/24/05, Zouta oxpf <zouta.oxpf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anthony:
>
> If your interfaces are all in IGP, then using ip unnumbered to to that
> interface will recurse to that interface during route-recursion, still
> blackholing traffic. If your interfaces are not in IGP, and not on same
> subnet, BGP peering might not come up, a big dillemma.
>
> Seems like a good question for the Proctor. He/She might allow the
> creation of a subnet from within your given address space; If it's not
> allowed, why do the Workbook vendors do it so often?
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Happy Thanksgiving to the whole of Groupstudy!
>
> ZO
>
>
> On 11/23/05, Anthony Sequeira <terry.francona@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > I want to tunnel my iBGP peering from R1 to R4 because R2 is not running
> > BGP. I want to use the loopback 0 interfaces for the peerings. The IGP
> > in
> > use is EIGRP and all of the interfaces shown below are running EIGRP.
> >
> >
> >
> > R1-----4.4.8.0/24-----R2-----4.4.12.0/24-----R4
> >
> >
> >
> > R1 lo0 4.4.1.1/24
> >
> > R4 lo0 4.4.4.4/24
> >
> >
> >
> > I have this sample scenario labbed up and I am having a heck of a time.
> > I
> > have tried the following with no luck:
> >
> >
> >
> > Attempt 1
> >
> > R1:
> >
> > int tunnel 0
> >
> > ip unnumbered lo0
> >
> > tunnel source 4.4.8.1
> >
> > tunnel destination 4.4.12.4
> >
> >
> >
> > R2:
> >
> > int tunnel 0
> >
> > ip unnumbered lo0
> >
> > tunnel source 4.4.12.4
> >
> > tunnel destination 4.4.8.1
> >
> >
> >
> > Attempt 2
> >
> > R1:
> >
> > int tunnel 0
> >
> > ip unnumbered lo0
> >
> > tunnel source lo0
> >
> > tunnel destination 4.4.4.4
> >
> >
> >
> > R2:
> >
> > int tunnel 0
> >
> > ip unnumbered lo0
> >
> > tunnel source lo0
> >
> > tunnel destination 4.4.1.1
> >
> >
> >
> > You see this is easy and works great if I create a new subnet for the
> > tunnel and use that in my BGP peerings the issue that I am having is
> > trying to use the loopback addresses for the peerings and still use my
> > tunnel.
> >
> >
> >
> > I notice that my tunnel interface does not show up in the routing table
> > when
> > I am pulling the address from the loopback..I guess this must be why my
> > BGP
> > is not using it????
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyone feel like labbing this one up and trying this one? Or is it
> > something
> > really simple that I am missing about tunnels?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance for you consideration of this e-mail.
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:07 GMT-3