From: Alexei Monastyrnyi (alexeim@orcsoftware.com)
Date: Tue Oct 03 2006 - 05:18:01 ART
Hi.
I think all should be in wording.
For the first case you might have some output which looks particularly
this way if and only if you use particularly that method.
For the second case above is also valid as well as thinking of BGP path
selection list.
I am not sure if wording is clear in US (as English-speaking country),
but in Brussels they use very straightforward language. :-) considering
probably that most candidates are non-native in English.
Just my two cents.
A.
Cagri Yucel wrote:
> I understand that, on the lab main scoring criteria is to do the task
> without violating what question asks for.
>
> OK
>
> But what if I do things not using the best practices ?
>
> Example:
>
> I am aggregating some prefixed within BGP but also need to allow half of the
> subnets
> Best practice: aggregate-address summary-only then unsuppress-map
> Another way of doing it: aggregate-address w/o summary-only then a route-map
> out to filter the subnets I don't need
> will I get point for the both ?
>
> Next
>
> Smaller prefixes naturally have preference on the neighboring AS. Job done.
> But what if I was to excited and also set MED to make sure everything is in
> place (although not necessary at all). Does this makes my answer wrong ?
>
> Am I thinking too much ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cagri
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 07:29:04 ART