From: Schulz, Dave (DSchulz@dpsciences.com)
Date: Sat Nov 11 2006 - 02:54:50 ART
This could always be a catchy part, like where you may be asked to add a
loopback later in the lab....and it happens to falls in the range
covered by the mask.
Dave Schulz,
Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Lab Rat #109385382
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 7:36 PM
To: 'Michael Zuo'; Mengdi Cao; Mike O
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: confused about network statements
Wow, is this true? I have always thought it best practice to advertise
the
exact subnet the interface is a part of...??
Can someone please explain the best practice here (in Cisco Lab terms,
of
course)?
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Zuo
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 3:59 PM
To: Mengdi Cao; Mike O
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: confused about network statements
Plus you don't have to remember/figure out what the mask should be...
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Mengdi Cao
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 8:18 AM
To: Mike O
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: confused about network statements
Hi, Mike,
I believe the most simple answer is always use 0.0.0.0 unless otherwise
specified. This is to avoid unnecessary interfaces to be involved in
the
routing protocol.
Regards,
Xiangling
On 11/10/06, Mike O <mikeeo@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> I took the Assessor lab recently and had questions marked wrong
because I
> used a 0.0.0.255 mask statement instead of 0.0.0.0 , I understand when
> they ask you to only enable the routing protocol on a specific
> interface
you
> can
> use a mask of 0.0.0.0 in combination with passive-interface, but these
> questions didn't specify. Should it be when in doubt use a mask of
0.0.0.0
> ?
>
> -Mike
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 01 2006 - 08:05:46 ART