Re: YAFRIAQ (Yet Another Frame Relay Inverse ARP Question)

The only negative side effect is that you may have connectivity yuo did not
expect.

Think of a scenario where there may be extra DLCI's. It won't break you as
someone said before but may cause a headache later.

I'd stick to the dogma of:

1. Make No Assumptions.

2. Read the Lab Requirements.

3. Ask the Proctor.

Hypothetically speaking you could alway run it on your lab and see what
happens. If you are very explicit in your lab mock up - nothing will
happen. In the lab you probably won't get the courtesy or foreknowledge of
how a frame switch is configured or if there are other end-points connected
to that same switch for instance.

For the lab the correct answers is above, notthing less and nothing more.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:54 AM, michael haynes <mghaynes_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> If the lab topology shows hub and spoke, but you have a dynamic mapping
> going between the spokes, I think you would lose points unless the lab
> explicitly states that you can use inverse arp.
>
> Rule #1: Don't make any assumptions about the lab
>
> Michael
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Salah ElShekeil
> <salah.elshekeil_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Agree with Robert, just to make sure !!
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Robert Steeneken <
> r.steeneken_at_gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I would disable it always (when the lab allows me ofcource) just to
> know
> > > exactly what the mappings are. And I am not surprised by mappings that
> > are
> > > dynamicly are formed. Just to be sure.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Dale Shaw <dale.shaw_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > A hypothetical question..
> > > >
> > > > We all know that's good practice to disable F/R inverse-arp and nail
> > > > down your L3-L2 mappings, but if there was no task that required the
> > > > dynamic mappings to be disabled, and all the necessarily mappings for
> > > > the topology were statically mapped and functional, would we lose
> > > > points for the 'extra' dynamic mappings?
> > > >
> > > > Note I am not talking about the infamous "0.0.0.0" mappings -- they
> > > > can obviously cause operational headaches.
> > > >
> > > > Curious on the group's thoughts on this, but please include a reason
> > > > other than just "it's just the way I do it", for disabling F/R InARP,
> > > > if that's what you do.
> > > >
> > > > cheers,
> > > > Dale
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Thu Apr 23 2009 - 22:29:09 ART