From: Gary Duncanson (gary.duncanson@googlemail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 21 2008 - 16:35:54 ARST
Nate,
Seems ok for inbound updates on s1/0, but for int s1/0 wont the updates
still be sent out?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cielieska Nathan" <ncielieska@gmail.com>
To: "Gary Duncanson" <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>
Cc: "Darren Johnson" <dazza_johnson@yahoo.co.uk>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: Failed on 6 Jan,Dubai, I don't know why even now I have no
doubt about my answers.
> hows about
>
> router rip
> passive-interface s1/0
>
> access-list 101 deny udp 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 eq 520
> access-list 101 permit ip any any
>
> int s1/0
> ip access-group 101 in
>
> Regards,
> Nate
>
> On Jan 21, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Gary Duncanson wrote:
>
>> Offset-list can poison the route but will it actually prevent it being
>> received by the interface?
>>
>> Requirement - 'RIP routes neither sent or received on the interface'
>>
>> Gary
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Johnson"
>> <dazza_johnson@yahoo.co.uk>
>> To: "'Gary Duncanson'" <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>; "'Farhan Anwar'"
>> <farhan.anwar@gmail.com>
>> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:19 PM
>> Subject: RE: Failed on 6 Jan,Dubai, I don't know why even now I have no
>> doubt about my answers.
>>
>>
>>> Also, setting the AD to 255, or using an offset-list to make the route
>>> unreachable.....
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> It would be so much easier if RIP formed adj like EIGRP and OSPF ;-)
>>>
>>> Dazzler
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Gary
>>> Duncanson
>>> Sent: 19 January 2008 16:23
>>> To: Farhan Anwar
>>> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>> Subject: Re: Failed on 6 Jan,Dubai, I don't know why even now I have no
>>> doubt about my answers.
>>>
>>> Will that block outbound or inbound depending on access-group in or
>>> out?
>>>
>>> I take it you mean distribute list with gateway statement plus extended
>>> acl
>>> ?
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Farhan Anwar
>>> To: Gary Duncanson
>>> Cc: Felix Nkansah ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 1:55 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Failed on 6 Jan,Dubai, I don't know why even now I have
>>> no
>>> doubt about my answers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Distribute list with gateway statement + prefix-list denying that
>>> gateway
>>> and permitting others
>>> or
>>> an extended acl on interface having deny statement for rip.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 18, 2008 12:45 PM, Gary Duncanson
>>> <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's a good one Felix. What would be a decent alternative do you
>>> think
>>> to
>>> passive-interface? Distribute-list?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Felix Nkansah" <felixnkansah@gmail.com>
>>> To: "sirus MOGHADASIAN" <cyrus.mgh@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: "groupstudy" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:36 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Failed on 6 Jan,Dubai, I don't know why even now I have
>>> no
>>> doubt about my answers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > HI sirus,
>>> >
>>> > It's difficult to understand why we failed or got low marks in
>>> some
>>> > sections. It requires a sincere examination of one's self to admit
>>> a
>>> > failure.
>>> >
>>> > A simple task may not be as simple as it seems. If it's that
>>> simple,
>>> why
>>> > are
>>> > you tested on it in the difficult & coveted CCIE lab. Besides,
>>> remember
>>> > that
>>> > the the ccie lab is an 'ALL OR NOTHING GAME.'
>>> >
>>> > No partial credits. Marks are awarded for perfect answers only
>>> (ones
>>> that
>>> > meet ALL requirements without breaking ANY requirement).
>>> >
>>> > As an example, let's assume a candidate had a task like below:
>>> >
>>> > TASK 3.X Configure RIP on R1 for the specified interfacees. Ensure
>>> that
>>> > RIP
>>> > routes are neither sent nor received on interface S1/0.
>>> >
>>> > This question is simple, but it only seems so. So we provide a
>>> solution
>>> > like
>>> > below:
>>> >
>>> > R1
>>> >
>>> > router rip
>>> > ver 2
>>> > no auto
>>> > network x.x.x.x
>>> > network y.y.y.y
>>> > passive-interface s1/0
>>> >
>>> > A candidate may assume the 'passive-interface' command would meet
>>> the
>>> > second
>>> > requirement.
>>> >
>>> > WRONG.
>>> >
>>> > Passive-interface only prevents SENDING of routes, and not
>>> RECEIVING
>>> of
>>> > routes. So the candidate scores a 0 for not meeting ALL
>>> requirements
>>> for
>>> > this 'simple' task. He is perplexed and doubts his scores.
>>> >
>>> > Please dont give up. Reexamine yourself sincerely again. Take the
>>> > suggestions provided by the other experts, and you shall surely
>>> come
>>> home
>>> > after your next lab with a number.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > Felix
>>> >
>>> >
>>> _____________________________________________________________________ __
>>> > 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Farhan Anwar
>>> www.farhananwar.com
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________________________ __
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________________________________
>>> Win tickets to the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany with Yahoo! Messenger.
>>> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/fifaworldcup_uk/
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________ _
>> Subscription information may be found at: http://www.groupstudy.com/
>> list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 01 2008 - 10:38:00 ARST