From: Ben (bmunyao@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 01 2007 - 07:55:17 ART
Relax CCIE19999 :) . I don't believe speculation equals NDA violation. Your
question was a good example of what could come from Cisco, totally
unexpected.
Ben
On 8/1/07, CCIE 19999 <ccie@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> Lim,
>
>
>
> I was just curious if I could override the connected prefix with a
> distributed one. I was going though one of the workbooks and I
> misinterpreted (:-)) the scenario. I couldn't get a proper explanation in
> the solution guide.
>
>
>
> I don't think it is possible to override the AD of the connected or make
> the
> prefix appear as an external one.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Shine
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Toh Soon, Lim [mailto:tohsoon28@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2007 1:51 PM
> To: CCIE 19999
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Connected interface appear as External
>
>
>
> Hi Shine,
>
> Just curious, what's the practicality of modifying the AD of a connected
> route (AD=0) to some higher value (in your example, AD of external EIGRP,
> i.e. 170)? Do you encounter this requirement in your lab workbooks or
> elsewhere?
>
> I'm kinda confused. Please clarify.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> B.Rgds,
> Lim TS
>
>
>
> On 7/31/07, CCIE 19999 <ccie@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> Is there a way actually you can make a connected prefix appear as
> external?
>
> For example, 151.10.1.2 is a connected interface on R1 and the routing
> protocol is EIGRP.
>
> I am wondering if it is possible to make the prefix appear as D EX in
> router
> R1 instead of as Connected.
>
>
>
> TIA,
>
> Shine
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:09 ART