From: George Goglidze (goglidze@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Nov 04 2007 - 13:10:16 ART
Hello,
The redundancy issue I think is quite clear, it contradicts itself.
I think on the real lab, if I have something similar I'll just ask a
proctor.
but the routing, in my opinion there's no need for redistributrion with
route-maps because in
this scenario we redistribute only at one point.
but again, nobody gave a clear answer, if that would be find on the lab.
although in real world, it would not produce any routing loops.
Regards,
On 11/4/07, ccie preparation <ccie22@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am having similar issues , Please advice.
>
> 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.
>
> Joseph
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 - 06:37:28 ART