From: Rich Collins (nilsi2002@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Oct 29 2007 - 11:37:07 ART
1) I was wondering if you have to take extra precautions when you have
redistribution between 3 routing processes on one router?
Looking at the solution you will notice that between OSPF1 and OSPF2 there
is filtering (matching ext type1 or ext type2 and setting ext metric type
1).
I can suppose the tagging is done between RIP and OSPF2 because of possible
redundancy via RIP -> OSPF1 -> OSPF2.
What do others think?
2) seems like a contradiction to me
-Rich
On 10/27/07, George Goglidze <goglidze@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have couple question here on ipexpert's section 19.
>
> 1) They have RIP, OSPF #1, OSPF #2 on R2,
> and redistribution between all of them.
>
> They make it wirh route-map-s.
> when redistributing from OSPF to RIP they set TAG 100, and then when they
> redistribute from RIP to OSPF,
> they check TAG's with route-map, and if it's 100 they deny it.
>
> Now the question is: In a topology like that have in here, I think they
> don't need to do it.
> because the loop will never happen anyway. because it's only one link
> speaking RIP, the same route will not return back on another link.
>
>
> 2) in REDUNDANCY section. first they say we need to make clear text
> authentication. but later they tell us that the password should not be
> possible to sniff.
> does not this contrudict itself? is it just a mistake?
> in the answer by the way they do just clear text authentication. so they
> didn't meet the last requirement.
>
> Thanks a lot for clarification.
>
> P.S. By the way, can anyone give me some feedback on ipexpert's COD ??? is
> it really good? if it's good I'm gonna tell my company to buy it for me.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:19 ART