From: Joseph Brunner (joe@affirmedsystems.com)
Date: Sun Nov 04 2007 - 16:43:48 ART
>I think on the real lab, if I have something similar I'll just ask a
proctor.
Ha, I've heard that before.
And they'll just not answer. They can't "clarify" the test enough to help
you get points, only to help you understand the shortcomings of the diagram,
etc
-Joe
_____
From: George Goglidze [mailto:goglidze@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 11:10 AM
To: ccie preparation
Cc: Joseph Brunner; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: IPEXPERT, Lab 19
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:28 ART