From: R.S CCIE (r.s.cciestudy@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 02 2007 - 18:36:56 ART
Joe,
[quote]
"read the question again" or "you're not the first person
to be tested on that rack"
[/quote]
Did they treat you like that when you were there at SJ?
Horrible!
Ed
On 11/2/07, Joseph Brunner <joe@affirmedsystems.com> wrote:
>
> They would slam you for not knowing the simple way of local-as.
>
> IMHO you would get "read the question again" or "you're not the first
> person
> to be tested on that rack"
>
> -J
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Biggs, Jeff (M/CIO/BIE)
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:55 AM
> To: smorris@ipexpert.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: LAB 21 BGP solution
>
> Thanks Scott. I definitely believe in he KISS principle, but could I
> possibly ask the proctor to clarify this situation or would that be
> "against the rules"?
>
>
> Jeffrey Biggs
> Sr. Network Engineer
> USAID
> M/CIO/BIE
> 240-646-5003
> jbiggs@usaid.gov
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Morris [mailto:smorris@ipexpert.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:44 AM
> To: Biggs, Jeff (M/CIO/BIE); ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: LAB 21 BGP solution
>
> IMHO that would possibly require some extra work or thinking.
> Confederations change the entire structure where if you had multiple
> eBGP
> neighbors, it would affect them as well. Local-as affects a per-peer
> configuration only which makes it a little simpler.
>
> In this example, both would accomplish the same thing though, just be
> aware
> of the potential difficulties moving forward!
>
>
> Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
> JNCIE-M
> #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
> CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
> VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
> IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
>
> A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits!
>
> smorris@ipexpert.com
>
> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
> Fax: +1.810.454.0130
> http://www.ipexpert.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Biggs, Jeff (M/CIO/BIE)
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:39 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: LAB 21 BGP solution
>
> I see that the solution uses LOCAL-AS NO-PREPEND, but I set it up using
> CONFEDERATIONS and got the same result.
>
>
>
> R7# show ip bgp
>
> Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
>
> *> 172.16.0.0 10.10.10.6 50 0 600 i
>
> * 10.10.10.5 100 0 600
> i
>
> *> 172.16.1.0/24 10.10.10.6 150 0 600 i
>
> *> 172.16.2.0/24 10.10.10.6 50 0 600 i
>
> *> 172.16.3.0/24 10.10.10.6 50 0 600 i
>
> * 172.16.4.0/24 10.10.10.6 100 0 600 i
>
> *> 10.10.10.5 50 0 600
> i
>
> *> 192.168.22.0 10.10.10.8 0 0 400 i
>
> r7#
>
>
>
> Would this be considered acceptable since there is no mention of not
> being
> able to use confederations or explicit use of local-as?
>
>
>
> Jeffrey Biggs
>
> Sr. Network Engineer
>
> USAID
>
> M/CIO/BIE
>
> 240-646-5003
>
> jbiggs@usaid.gov <mailto:jbiggs@usaid.gov>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:27 ART