RE: 360 lab 16 - bgp solution

Hi Ladee Geek,

I think you have a point here. Despite the mention in the goals and
restrictions section, the routes advertised in BGP are not explicitly
excluded from the reachability requirement. The requirement to prefer the
R1 exit does, it seems to me, imply that the alternative exit is possible.
Your point would be very well taken ina "real" routing situation.
In a lab situation, I would not overly concern myself with the implications
of potential failure scenarios, unless explicitly required to do so. This
issue might be a good candidate for proctor clarification; but only if you
have lots of extra time! You certainly got your head around this rather
complex scenario!

Best regards,

Bob Sinclair CCIE 10427 CCSI 30427
www.bobsinclair.net

From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Ladee Geek
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 9:53 PM
To: Cisco certification
Subject: 360 lab 16 - bgp solution

Hey guys

I think lab 16 is missing a pretty significant requirement for bgp. Would
like a second opinion. I don t think you will need to lab it up. I think
some white boarding or drawing it on paper will do.

In my opinion the solution requires redistribution of the bgp routes
advertized from Sw3 into EIGRP on Sw2. I say that because of the black hole
r2 creates since its not running bgp. I know the traffic is being
preferred over r1, but Im thinking that if anything happens to r1 and the
bgp routes enter AS 100 via R3 without the redistribution the connectivity
will fail.

Would the test identify that the redundant path must be viable. This
scenario did not.

Thanks in advance.

--
r/
LG
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net