Sir, Given task is to establish link between z\os mainframe with OSA interface a 3750 with fiber gig port.
1. Mainframe OSA- VTAM defined using TCP/IP defined 2. At switch for 3750 fiber link config look like below ! interface GigabitEthernet2/0/49 description OSA DR Link.... switchport access vlan 100 Switch(config-if)# no switchport Switch(config-if)# ip address 10.95.xx.xx 255.255.255.252 Switch(config-if)# shutdown ! 3. I also need to 10 ports to LAN using default VLAN. Tell me what other need to define... Sam -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 15, Issue 6 Send CCIE_RS mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CCIE_RS digest..." Today's Topics: 1. v9.0, Sec8 (Wollmann, Bruno RQHR) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:53:54 -0600 From: "Wollmann, Bruno RQHR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] v9.0, Sec8 To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 1) The final configs are redistributing connected routes. Is the intent of this lab to provide reachability to ALL IP addresses or just the ones specified by NETWORK statements? I didn't redistribute the connected routes but I still have full reachability between all IP addresses in the NETWORK statements (i.e. I only used network statements on the networks that the lab asked for). I had to use NEXT-HOP-SELF in my neighbour statements in BGP, but it works. Does my solution fulfill the requirements? 2) The final configs don't address any routing loops. When I do successive SHOW IP ROUTES, the results on R5 and R6 don't stay consistent. When I do TRACEROUTES there are obvious loops. I put measures in my solution to avoid the loops all together and it seems to work fine. My question is, how do I know when I should implement loop avoidance during the exam? 3) I loaded the final configs as a test and I found 1 problem. Access-list 1 on R2 allows the even routes and denies the odds. This is opposite of the requirements. The 1st line is "access-list 1 permit 192.1.1.0 0.0.14.0" when it should be "access-list 1 permit 192.1.0.0 0.0.14.0" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://onlinestudylist.com/pipermail/ccie_rs/attachments/20070429/76ed4e 0b/attachment-0001.html End of CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 15, Issue 6 ************************************** The information contained in this communication (including any attachments) may be confidential and legally privileged. This email may not serve as a contractual agreement unless explicit written agreement for this purpose has been made. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender indicating that it was received in error and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.
