From: Con Spathas (con@spathas.net)
Date: Sun Oct 28 2007 - 08:24:09 ART
Hi Group,
I've been going through the CCIE R&S Practice Labs (Duggan/Gorito) ....
In the first lab there are two IGP domains (RIP and EIGRP). There is only
one point of mutual redistribution between the two IGPs.
The section for redistribution asks:
*
Redistribute IGP protocols to ensure full IP visibility between all routers.
*
As a safety precaution, ensure that R6 can not learn the EIGRP routes it
previously advertised into the RIP domain back from R4.
So my solution was to tag EIGRP routes going into RIP with a TAG of 90:
route-map EIGRP2RIP permit 10
set tag 90
And then deny these coming back from RIP into EIGRP:
route-map RIP2EIGRP deny 10
match tag 90
!
route-map RIP2EIGRP permit 20
Anyhow the solution asked for a distribute-list inbound on the RIP speaking
interface of R6 blocking the EIGRP subnets and permitting everything else.
Now I know my solution would work (as well as scalable if more eigrp routes
are added later) - and I know there's more than 1 way to skin a cat with
most tasks!
But my question is - will alternate solutions be taken into account if they
don't break the rules or are we at the mercy of the grading script?
I know there's always the option to ask the proctor - but it seems so
straightforward that I'd be inclined to save any proctor brownie points for
more obscure taaks.
Cheers,
Con.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:18 ART