From: mohamed ouamer (mohamedouamer@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 22 2008 - 09:48:35 ARST
When can simply configure authentication on the receiving interface only.
> To: uchil.groupstudy@yahoo.com> CC: dazza_johnson@yahoo.co.uk;
ccielab@groupstudy.com> Subject: Re: Failed on 6 Jan,Dubai, I don't know why
even now I have no doubt about my answers.> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:06:06
+0000> From: gary.duncanson@googlemail.com> > 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