From: Brandon S. Lynch (bsl@mnsginc.com)
Date: Tue Dec 02 2008 - 13:48:00 ARST
It's not THE solution. It's A solution. Remember, consider ALL
options!
Did the task say anything about "no new interfaces" or "no tunnels?"
What about the restrictions?
- Brandon
________________________________
From: khurram noor [mailto:smartcapricon82@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:34 AM
To: Brandon S. Lynch; Cisco certification
Subject: Re: OSPF without Virual Link
I just dont understand why redisttibution was the solution to this
problem.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Brandon S. Lynch <bsl@mnsginc.com>
wrote:
In my opinion, the answer to that question is determined by the task
itself (wording), and the goals and restrictions of the lab.
Again, just my opinion.
- Brandon
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
khurram noor
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:24 AM
To: Lloyd Ardoin; Cisco certification
Subject: Re: OSPF without Virual Link
By doing this the redistribution way, the routes from area 28 appears as
E2
routes in other areas ! is this ok.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Lloyd Ardoin <Lloyd@thewizkid.biz>
wrote:
> If you are going to use a tunnel the tunnel addresses have to be part
of
> area 0 for it to work correclty.
>
> Lloyd V Ardoin Network Engineer
> Sagenet, LLC
> 918-270-7133
> lardoin@sagenet.com
> MCSE, CCDA, CCNP, CCSP, GSEC, GCFW, GCWN, CISSP
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* khurram noor
> *Sent:* Tue 12/2/2008 9:15 AM
> *To:* Brandon S. Lynch; Cisco certification
> *Subject:* Re: OSPF without Virual Link
>
> what will the source and destination?
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Brandon S. Lynch <bsl@mnsginc.com>
wrote:
>
> > How about a tunnel?
> >
> > - Brandon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> > khurram noor
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:07 AM
> > To: Cisco certification
> > Subject: OSPF without Virual Link
> >
> > I have a scenerio where i have 3 routers (R2, R4 and R5) and 1
switch
> > (SW2).
> > i have to configure ospf on them using area 0 , 245 and 28.
> >
> > R2, R4 and R5 are connected over frame-relay point to point.
> > R4 is connected R5 using serial link.
> > R2 eth is connected to SW2.
> >
> > Area 0 is configured on serial link b/w R4 and R5.
> > Area 245 is configured on frame-relay network of R2, R4 and R5.
> > Area 28 is configured on b/w eth link of R2 and SW2.
> >
> > Keeping the above scenerio is mind ... we need a virtual link for
area
> > 28
> > over area 245 to connect it to area 0....but the question demands
that
> > no
> > virutal link should be configured on R4 or R5.
> >
> > Can anyone help in solving this question.
> > I am doing Lab6 of IECWB.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Khurram Noor
> > CCIP, CCNA
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
<http://www.ccie.net/>
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 01 2009 - 12:53:07 ARST