From: Anthony Sequeira (terry.francona@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Dec 04 2005 - 10:45:00 GMT-3
If you were asked to advertise your loopbacks and were not given specifics
on how to advertise them.....I would be willing to bet that you could
advertise them in more than one protocol without point loss.
On 12/4/05, Venkataramanaiah.R <vramanaiah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, just a basic question.. Is it a bad thing to include the loopback in
> more than one protocol..(assuming there is no explicit restriction to not
> include in any one of the protocol)? My idea is to make them look native in
> both the protocols..
>
> Thoughts..?
>
> -Venkat
>
> On 12/3/05, Hash Aminu <hashng@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > gramatical was too much in the lab having been there myself too . and
> > concerning the left off of an interface not being covered by a routing
> > protocol i doubt much. EXCEPT if cisco has given you an open choice for
> > that
> > which usually use to be of no consequence, and sometimes as a gotcha.
> > base configs mistakes AFAIK the proctor will notify you that if you
> > have
> > any of that its your duty to correct it. that is settled. as you have
> > pointed out yourself.
> > BUT wording of the question i believe have been carefully checked by
> > cisco.
> > anyway this is my opinion i stand to be corrected
> > thanks alot
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 09 2006 - 07:07:50 GMT-3