From: Tony Schaffran \(GS\) (groupstudy@cconlinelabs.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2008 - 21:37:03 ART
If the requirement is to advertise the two networks without a network
statement and there is not any restrictions stating do not advertise others,
then a simple redistribute connected would satisfy the requirement.
Keep it simple.
Tony Schaffran
Sr. Network Consultant
CCIE #11071
CCNP, CCNA, CCDA,
NNCDS, NNCSS, CNE, MCSE
www.cconlinelabs.com
Your #1 choice for online Cisco rack rentals.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Ruben T.
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 4:18 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: 1 problem - different solutions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I would like an opinion about lab exam (I prefer based on experience,
but any comment is welcome)
In a workbook task, I have a request to advertise to subnets in a eigrp
domain, and the constraint is that I can't use "network" command:
-2 subnets to advertise are directly connected and are in one
differnt router each.
-In those two routers, rest of the subnets are part of the eigrp domain.
So as the request is: "advertise VLAN-A and VLAN-B, don't use network
command", y see and tested 3 ways (one is the workbook solution):
Opt. 1
router eigrp 10
redisribute connected
Do not attend to the explicit request of "advertise VLAN-A and VLAN-B"
but more "advertise all connected", but in the scenario, these two are
the only ones connected subnets that are out of the eigrp domain. So the
resulting advertisement is correct.
Opt. 2
route-map con-eigrp
match interface eth 0/0
router eigrp 10
redistribute connected metric x x x x route-map con-eigrp
In my opinion, the most elegant of the three, lets you connect new
subnets without need to change redistribution... but ramble on the
evolution of the workbook topology is something out of the scope of the
excersise... I guess
Opt. 3
access-list 1 deny a.b.c.d w.w.w.w
access-list 1 permit any
router eigrp 10
redistribute connected
distribute-list 1 out
This 3rd option, although was not the case in workbook task, (a.b.c.d as
another connected subnet not requested to advertise), I wanted to check
it. My opinion: Not very clean... filtering routing updates sounds
risky... but with the right ACL, works.
So my question is... If I face similar situation in the lab (that is, 1
requirement, N possible solutions that mets literally the requirement),
and I configure one of those, and check that works... I should assume
that my configuration would fail if it's different from the one that
proctors or whoever have in mind?
I would like to know how to assess my knowledge according to the
solutions provided by the workbooks.
regards
ruben
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEUEARECAAYFAkiFGSUACgkQFEXpboLXPWvKFwCffAuVE4CFVThzb9BXyWk85Mp1
/KUAmOrCAqJOoOjlHhaXwm3eaNq8m9I=
=0K7R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:56 ART