From: Koen Zeilstra (koen@koenzeilstra.com)
Date: Tue Mar 27 2007 - 08:07:05 ART
Overconfiguration or not?
What if for example you need to configure NAT. I prefer to mark things
down so I would configure the inside source access-list as narrow as
possible. I.e. specifying each subnet that needs NAT access. However you
would forget one subnet, I would be possible to violate one of the demands
in the tasks. So a permit any woud be the easy way out. Or would you call
that "too less configuration".
btw: aliases (see other reply to original question) can be safely left on
the routers. I checked with a proctor for this. Don't waste your time on
cleaning out your aliases.
Cheers,
Koen
-----------------------
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Scott Morris wrote:
| So you are asking whether or not the proctor would lie, or your friend would
| lie? :)
|
| That statement is correct. As you'd see in many archive discussions, as
| long as you do not violate some rule of the lab, then overconfiguration is
| not a problem.
|
|
| Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE
| #153, CISSP, et al.
| CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
| IPexpert VP - Curriculum Development
| IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
| smorris@ipexpert.com
| http://www.ipexpert.com
|
|
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
| yousef mohammed
| Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 1:21 AM
| To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
| Subject: Fwd: Extra configuration will not loose marks
|
| ---------- Forwarded message ----------
| From: yousef mohammed <ccie2752536@gmail.com>
| Date: Mar 4, 2007 7:47 AM
| Subject: Extra configuration will not loose marks
| To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
|
| Dear All
|
| One of my friends attend the CCIE lab recently, the Procter Told
| him " any extra configuration that will not change the behavior of your
| network will no cause any mark detection"
|
| now, do you believe that this is correct. i mean i can do for example the
| tagging for the routes when i do mutual redistribution between OSPF and
| EIGRP (not needed), just to be in the safe side, to be sure no routing loops
| will occour under any circumentances.
|
| regards
|
| _______________________________________________________________________
| 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 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 06:35:53 ART