From: Paul Schuuring (paul.schuuring@tele2.com)
Date: Thu Mar 08 2007 - 11:23:51 ART
Hi Jeff,
from the exam perspective, if there isn't specifically asked for, let the
/32 exist in the routing table.
If you ask the proctor, he will probably answer "keep it simple".
Paul Schuuring
Senior Data Engineer
CCIE #16742
Tele2-Versatel (AS13127)
Postbus 22697
1100 DD Amsterdam Z-O
The Netherlands
t. (+31) 20 750 2171
m. (+31) 6 21205157
paul.schuuring@tele2.com
<http://www.versatel.nl/> of <http://www.tele2.nl/>
This message and any attachment are Versatel proprietary and may be
privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the
intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this
message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the
contents to any other person and destroy all copies of the original message
and attachment.
"Jeff Mullan"
<jmullan78@gmail.
com> To
"Cisco certification"
Sent by: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
nobody@groupstudy cc
.com
Subject
PPP: no peer neighbor-route
03/07/2007 10:31
PM
Please respond to
"Jeff Mullan"
<jmullan78@gmail.
com>
Folks,
In the lab exam, if we have a PPP link to be configured, AND NOTHING HAS
BEEN MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY shall we by remove the /32 via "no peer
neighbor-route" or let it stay there ? What would be a best practice here
from exam point-of-view ?
Thanks,
-JM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 06:35:50 ART