From: Gary Duncanson (gary.duncanson@googlemail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 22 2008 - 06:41:37 ARST
Thanks Uchil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Uchil Perera
To: Gary Duncanson
Cc: Darren Johnson ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Failed on 6 Jan,Dubai, I don't know why even now I have no
doubt about my answers.
Hi Gary,
That is also a possibility if it's an internal router, if so best option is
to verify with the proctor.
I have seen several vendor workbooks having these types of questions
involving routers connected to BB's, hence the only option is to use a
dist-list, offset-list or an acl.
Regards
Uchil Perera
CCIE # 18536
Gary Duncanson <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure about that Uchil. If the question says RIP not received on
the interface then surely that's most likely what you have to achieve. Perhaps
block the sending of updates upstream so the interface never recieves RIP
updates?
----- Original Message -----
From: Uchil Perera
To: Gary Duncanson ; Darren Johnson
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Failed on 6 Jan,Dubai, I don't know why even now I have no
doubt about my answers.
Hi,
Though the question says 'RIP routes neither sent or received on the
interface'.
Access-lists, Distribute-lists, Offset-lists will not prevent it being
received by the interface, as RIP updates are sent by other neighbors. So what
matters is what happens to the RIP update after it is received.
Best will be to use a Distribute-list to block all updates but
Offset-lists also can be used.
Regards
Uchil Perera
CCIE # 18536
Gary Duncanson <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com> 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"
To: "'Gary Duncanson'" ; "'Farhan Anwar'"
Cc:
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
> 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"
> To: "sirus MOGHADASIAN"
> Cc: "groupstudy"
> 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