From: Gupta, Gopal (NWCC) (gopal.gupta@hp.com)
Date: Tue Feb 26 2008 - 07:22:48 ARST
In Some scenarios you do not have to use "No Auto Summary", it wont be
directly asked but a clue may have been given which will point you to
use "Auto Summary", I had one case in my Exam like this.
HTH
Gops
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Paul Borghese
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 02:02
To: 'Marc La Porte'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: RIP
Importance: Low
Hi Marc,
According to Cisco, RIP v1 has been removed from the lab.
You should almost always use "no auto-summary" under RIP, EIGRP, and BGP
unless the lab forbids it or has a requirement that would prevent it's
use.
Paul Borghese
Certification Science
http://www.certscience.com
Give us six weeks, and we guarantee you will pass the CCIE
Yes we accept Cisco Learning Credits
1-800-754-0349 x101
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Marc La Porte
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 2:58 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RIP
Hi experts!
A couple questions about RIP:
1. Is there still RIPv1 on the lab?
2. If it says to configure RIPv2 is it then implicit to configure "no
auto-summary"?
Scenario:
f0/0 (VLAN_C)
| fa0/0 (VLAN_A) ---
R1
--- serial --- R3 --- serial --- R2 --- fa0/0 (VLAN_B)
VLAN_A: 1.0.0.0/8
VLAN_B: 2.0.0.0/8
VLAN_C: 3.0.0.0/8
Serial (R1-R3): 13.0.0.0/8
Serial (R2-R3): 23.0.0.0/8
R3 should not advertise the route for VLAN B to R1 nor should it
advertise the route for VLAN A to R2...
My solution on R3:
router rip
distribute-list 1 out serial 1/2 <--- direction of R2 distribute-list
2 out serial 1/1 <--- direction of R1 !
access-list 1 deny 1.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 1 permit any !
access-list 2 deny 2.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 2 permit any
IE Solution on R3:
router rip
distribute-list prefix ONLY_VLAN_C out
!
ip prefix-list ONLY_VLAN_C seq 5 permit 3.0.0.0/8
Conclusion: I think my solution is better as it stops the advertisement
of VLAN_A and VLAN_B, but still advertises the subnets of the serial
links. The IE solutions doesn't do that... so I feel they filter more
than requested...
Appreciate your input on both the questions and the scenario...
Marc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2008 - 16:54:49 ARST