From: Martin Kiefer (martin@kiefer.dk)
Date: Wed Oct 25 2006 - 10:20:45 ART
This works on a 3550 as well.
Best regards
Martin Kiefer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> Behalf Of Radoslav Vasilev
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:09 PM
> To: Magmax
> Cc: Ryan; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: What are fair assumptions about practice labs?
>
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________
> 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