From: ian (iyux2000@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 18 2007 - 20:33:42 ART
This is definetely an "ask proctor" issue. I know from past experience.
Did everything to make external routes reachable, completely messed up adding synchonization and stuff. Then asked and been told reachability is not a requirement...
Big clean-up work backwards didn't avoid failure :)
On 3/18/07, ian <iyux2000@gmail.com> wrote:
Cagri Yucel,How are you$B!r$(D"B(B
Yes. I have the same questions regarding to the connectivity.
Especially, should we keep the full connectivity after configuring BGP, that is, should we inject BGP routes into IGP or by using some other decent ways to achieve this purpose? If someone has a good solution to this question, please let we know.
Thank you for your reply.
======= 2007-03-18 05:16:38 What you've mentioned in your letter$B!r$(D"k(B=======
>I am still confused, getting more confused about full connectivity !
>
>Think about local frame relay addresses which are not pingable without an
>additional map statement or unadvertised loopbacks.
>
>Case 1:
>
>If one of the questions states establish full connectivity, do I only loose
>the point value of that question if I forgot on interface ?
>
>Case 2:
>
>If cover page states full connectivity, how does this effects my points ? If
>there is no single questions asking for this ?
>
>Case 3:
>
>Nothing told. Do I really worry about full connectivity ?
>
>Am I thinking too much ?
>
>--
>-cagri
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Have a nice day.
ian
iyux2000@gmail.com
2007-03-18
-- -cagri
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 06:35:51 ART