From: RalF ... (routeflap@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 17 2006 - 21:02:50 ART
YES!!!!
Use InternetworkExperts, so you would not be worried about bad solutions
On 10/17/06, Khalifa Diop <califegeneral@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am purchasing a lab practice kit and am leaning towards IP Experts ver
> 8.1. What do you think.
> Shoudl i consider another vendor?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> >From: Tim Chan <timanji@yahoo.com>
> >Reply-To: Tim Chan <timanji@yahoo.com>
> >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: bgp dmzlink-bw verification
> >Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I'm trying to understand the output I'm getting when I configure "bgp
> >dmzlink-bw".
> >After my configuration is done, I get the following output:
> >R2#sho ip bgp 0.0.0.0
> >BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/0, version 32
> >Paths: (2 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
> >Multipath: iBGP
> >Flag: 0x800
> > Advertised to non peer-group peers:
> > 145.1.245.5
> > 100,
> >(Received from a RR-client)
> > 145.1.245.5 from 145.1.245.5 (150.1.5.5)
> >Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, multipath
> > DMZ-Link
> >Bw 1 kbytes
> > 100, (Received from a RR-client)
> > 145.1.245.4 from
> >145.1.245.4 (150.1.4.4)
> > Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid,
> >internal, multipath, best
> > DMZ-Link Bw 1250 kbytes
> >
> >You can see that the
> >route to R5 is 1kbps and R4 is 1250kbps.
> >
> >So when I do a "show ip route", I
> >get the following:
> >R2#sho ip route 0.0.0.0
> >Routing entry for 0.0.0.0/0,
> >supernet
> > Known via "bgp 200", distance 200, metric 0, candidate default path
> >Tag 100, type internal
> > Last update from 145.1.245.4 00:00:28 ago
> > Routing
> >Descriptor Blocks:
> > * 145.1.245.5, from 145.1.245.5, 00:00:28 ago
> > Route
> >metric is 0, traffic share count is 10
> > AS Hops 1
> > 145.1.245.4, from
> >145.1.245.4, 00:00:28 ago
> > Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
> >AS Hops 1
> >
> >Note that I'm getting a traffic share count of 10:1. Which looks
> >good, BUT, the 10 is
> >towards the slower link, not the faster one. So normally
> >I would read this as, "For every
> >10 packets sent to R5, send 1 packet to R4."
> >But this makes no sense!
> >
> >In looking at the doccd, the output in the examples
> >follows what makes sense. The faster
> >links get the larger ratios.
> >
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t
> >/122t2/ftbgplb.htm#wp1052316
> >
> >This is from IE Vol2 Lab 6, task 4.9. And even
> >their verification output shows the same
> >10:1 favor over the slower link. Are
> >these outputs correct and I'm just reading it wrong?
> >(But then the doccd shows
> >otherwise)
> >
> >Please advise...
> >-Tim
> >
> >_______________________________________________________________________
> >Subscription information may be found at:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash
> with
> Live Search!
>
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
--Thanks RalF
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 07:29:05 ART