From: Leigh Harrison (ccileigh@gmail.com)
Date: Mon May 22 2006 - 17:53:29 ART
Hey there Larry,
a. You need full reachability to your own interfaces - for all you know
the route from the backbone could be a redistributed static to null 0 -
which you would never be able to ping.
b. If asked that I would tend to put a route summary through an
access-list only allowing the subnets that you want through - so if
anything were added to your network and passed around, then it would not
be passed to the backbone.
c. If it asks you to have the loopback as a /24 - then make it a /24.
If not, then don't. You may be penalised for it, or you may not be
penalised for it only the proctor will know. As long as you do what you
are asked, then you can't do any more than that.
Good luck!!
LH
#15331
Larry Chuon wrote:
> Hi group,
>
> I've some question for the lab.
>
> a. Is full reachability required to all backbones? For instance, I can see
> BGP routes from the backbone, but I can't ping it. Only my edge route can
> ping. Do I need to fix this either by redistributing BGP into IGP, static
> ARP or implementing NAT?
>
> b. If asked, make sure future changes don't impact the backbone, do they
> mean something like:
> 1) route summarization or
> 2) ip rip trigger
> 3) can you think of any other options?
>
> c. In OSPF, is it best to have /24 on Loopback or just leave it if not
> asked?
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Larry
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:22 ART