From: M S (michaelgstout@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 10 2007 - 02:43:35 ART
i took the interface configs to be wrong,since the directions said there
were errors in the initial config.
i think ppp peer neighbor route allows this functionallity.
Perhaps there is some other type of PPP interface you can use to meet the
requirement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben <bmunyao@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Ben <bmunyao@gmail.com>
To: "Cisco certification" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: IE lab14 task 3.4
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:34:07 +0300
Hi
The above task asks from R4 and R5 routers in a back to back
connection to
be configured to use ip addresses 167.x.45.4/32 and 167.x.45.5/32
respectively. Static routing not allowed, additional interfaces
allowed.
Initial configurations have encapsulation frame-relay on the affected
serial
interfaces.
The solution guide creates loopback interfaces and ip unnumbered to
these
loopbacks on the serial interfaces. It then changes the serial
interface
encapsulation to ppp.
The lab instructions forbid the change of initial encapsulation types
unless
explicitly allowed. I therefore opted to do the following
1. Place the IP addresses on loopback 1 interfaces
2. Create virtual template interfaces with ip unnumbered to the
loopback 1
interfaces
3. PPPoFR on the serial interfaces, thus retaining the original
encapsulation.
What would have been the appropriate solution in a real lab? Would
any of
you have done it differently? What other ways are there to achieve
the task
requirement?
Ben
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscription information may be found at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More photos, more messages, more storageget 2GB with Windows Live
Hotmail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 18 2007 - 08:17:40 ART