From: Jared Scrivener (jscrivener@ipexpert.com)
Date: Thu Jan 01 2009 - 17:32:16 ARST
I agree with Ron.
I recommend using numbers that emulate the link characteristics of the
interface the routes were coming from with respect to bandwidth, delay,
load, utilization etc. This gives more accurate metrics within EIGRP and
provides a good foundation for real-world application.
Cheers,
Jared Scrivener CCIE3 #16983 (R&S, Security, SP), CISSP
Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
Mailto: jscrivener@ipexpert.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
ron.wilkerson@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, 1 January 2009 1:49 PM
To: ccie girl; Cisco certification
Subject: Re: EIGRP Metrics
Unless specified, I think you'd be safe using any set of numbers, as long as
the task is met.
Personally, I'd use the more "logical" set of numbers.
-----Original Message-----
From: "ccie girl" <ccieangel@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:33:53
To: Cisco certification<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: EIGRP Metrics
Hi
If the lab (or any other situation for that matter) does not make any
constraints on the EIGRP metric during redistribution, is it acceptable to
use 1 1 1 1 1 or should one always try to make the metric at least a little
more logical, like using 1 for load, 255 for reliability etc.?
I have noticed that opinion seems divided amongst the Workbooks I have used
thus far.
Thanks and Happy New Year.
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 09:43:36 ARST