From: Radoslav Vasilev (deckland@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 25 2006 - 10:08:31 ART
conf t
macro name test1
do ping 1.1.1.1
do ping 2.2.2.2
@
macro global apply test1
This works with my 3750's, not sure what's available as syntax on the 3550s...
Rado
On 10/25/06, Magmax <magmax@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Can you tell me more about your 3550 macros scripts maybe an example
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Radoslav Vasilev
> Sent: Monday, 23 October 2006 7:51 PM
> To: Ryan
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: What are fair assumptions about practice labs?
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> Here's my suggestion to you - use the labs vendors to prepare yourself
> for the exam - not to simulate the exam. I personally use the IEWB
> from Internetworkexpert and have seen labs where loopback and
> connected interfaces are left unadvertised. If you really want to
> simulate the exam, go back and check if "...full connectivity" is
> required and make it work if so - advertise connected interfaces while
> making sure you're not loosing some routes and breaking something
> else. Usually what i do is to reload all routers after I finish the
> IGP section and run my tcl/3550 macros scripts to check that
> everything is fine - notice that at this stage you still might not be
> able to have full connectivity - for example the lab might include BGP
> as means to reach some parts of the network, I've seen labs where
> later on a task says that 0/0 should be originated somewhere, etc. So
> the conclusion is that you need to be flexible with your tcl scripts -
> at IGP sections you might be checking a subset of the whole
> connecitivity and latetr on after BGP section you should be able to
> re-check everthing.
>
> Again - my recommendation is to not worry about this aspect - what
> everyone says about the real exam is that the task will be very
> specific and clear so use the workbooks to find your weak spots as we
> all can do redistribution of connected routes ;)
>
> Rado
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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