From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jan 22 2008 - 02:09:22 ARST
Ever consider turning on a debug for whatever it is
you are wanting to do...
Does not really matter what it is really.
Then apply a configuration and just watch the debugs
go by. Log em if you like.
Then...
Apply a given a filter and watch what happens.
And each change thereafter...
Makes for a more interesting study session.
After a while things will get easier.
--- Cielieska Nathan <ncielieska@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note
>
> router rip
> passive-inteface s1/0
>
> Regards,
> Nate
> On Jan 21, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Gary Duncanson wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 01 2008 - 10:38:00 ARST