From: Sean.Zimmerman@clubcorp.com
Date: Mon Feb 26 2007 - 12:51:09 ART
How about making area 246 totally stubby?
Sean
"M S" <michaelgstout@hotmail.com>
Sent by: nobody@groupstudy.com
02/24/2007 11:22 PM
Please respond to
"M S" <michaelgstout@hotmail.com>
To
caccamucca@gmail.com, support@isolvesystems.com
cc
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject
Re: Ambiguous OSPF question...
I just did a question like this too.
So, let me reflect:
Since the requirement is to have end to end connectivity, how do you
provide this when you filter routes from a whole AS?
Would you use nat? How do you direct your routes to the natting device.
Seems like the area filter is a trap.
Are there other ways to gain access to the networks in this area becides
NAT?
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Cacca Mucca" <caccamucca@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "Cacca Mucca" <caccamucca@gmail.com>
To: Kim <support@isolvesystems.com>
CC: "Cisco certification" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: Re: Ambiguous OSPF question...
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:48:31 +0100
I'd say later. I'd block area 57.
On 2/23/07, Kim <support@isolvesystems.com> wrote:
>
> What does this mean to you? "Area 246 should not see Area 57's
specific
> routes"
>
> Is the answer to summarize area 57 routes or to block all routes
from 57?
> My answer was former, but the proctor says the other way....
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few
simple tips.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 07:38:48 ART