From: Arnaldo Tapel (andytapel@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 11 2006 - 04:07:41 ART
Or enable ospf on the interface instead of using the network statement.
On 11/11/06, Darby Weaver <darbyweaver@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Correct,
>
> So it really means read the question and look
> carefully to see if the wording is exactly referring
> to a particular interface...
>
> or if perhaps you may be asked to later include other
> interfaces, like a loopback and maybe you are
> restricted from adding more network statements or
> using redistributed connected etc.
>
> Easy to fall into this one...
>
> --- "Schulz, Dave" <DSchulz@dpsciences.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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 : Fri Dec 01 2006 - 08:05:46 ART