From: sheherezada@gmail.com
Date: Mon Oct 23 2006 - 10:56:57 ART
Hi,
You should definitely advertise the loopbacks. By default, if you run
more than one IGP on a router, you should advertise the loopbacks into
your core IGP (this is usually OSPF), but pay attention to the area
(some questions at a later time might have impact onto this). If
there is no mention about other networks (but you are generally
required to achieve full connectivity), redistribute them into all
available protocols. Don't forget to use a route-map (with match
interface).
It is not complicated, you just need practice. In the real lab you
will be doing this almost automatically.
Mihai
CCIE 16616
P.S. I doubt that proctors will give you a clue on this (it is too
basic), but there are some other ambiguous points where is safer not
to make assumptions.
On 10/23/06, Ryan <ryan95842@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just finished a very frustrating lab. It's not that it was terribly
> difficult, it was, but that it's not entirely clear what to do. I'm speaking
> specifically of the advertisement of loopback address's. In the beginning of
> the lab, it says all networks must be reachable etc. Half way through, there
> are VERY specific directions on how to put several loopbacks into the
> routing table, but only about half of them though and no mention of the
> others. Based on this "trend" and the lack of specific details, I followed
> the directions as carefully as I could and didn't do anything I was not
> asked to do. I get to the end and discover I was somehow supposed to
> advertise the remaining loopbacks into the various protocols. No clue is
> given that I was to do this, and into which protocol (between 2 -4 depending
> on which router).
>
> So my question is, at what point is is safe to make assumptions and just
> start adding things in? How am I supposed to cope with missing information
> in the practice labs?
>
> Is the real lab this vague and ambiguous?
>
> And at what point does "best practice" and "proper use" of a protocol go out
> the window? On the same lab, there was an objective to configure NAT, but it
> was not NAT like one would typically deploy with the conventional
> understanding of NAT, instead it very specific aspect of NAT, but no mention
> of that. The solution had all sorts of things with nothing to do with NAT...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ryan
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 07:29:06 ART