I meant Task 4  instead of Task 5.  Sorry about that.

--- On Fri, 6/6/08, Carlos Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Carlos Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] LAB 8 Task 5
To: "Scott Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "OSL CCIE Routing and Switching 
Lab Exam" <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, June 6, 2008, 11:03 PM

Hi,

Sorry to bother with a "simple question", but I'm having a hard time 
understanding the solution to this particular task.

R1 advertises 10 networks (loopbacks):

  network 192.1.1.0 
  network 192.1.2.0 
  network 192.1.3.0 
  network 192.1.4.0 
  network 192.1.5.0 
  network 192.1.6.0 
  network 192.1.7.0 
  network 192.1.8.0 
  network 192.1.9.0 
  network 192.1.10.0 

Then we are asked to do the following:

• Configure R2 to ONLY allow the odd routes advertised by R1 in its routing 
table, 
  these routes are in form of 192.1.1.0, 192.1.3.0, 192.1.5.0, 192.1.7.0, 
192.1.9.0/24

That means that .2, .4, .6, .8,
 & .10  will NOT be advertised.

2 issues I see here:

1. After the ACL is applied, 192.1.10.0/24 is still being allowed!
    Since it is an EVEN network, it should not be!

2. Mask 0.0.14.0  matches all ODD networks.  That's fine.

With it, we allow all the ODD networks and of course we deny everything else 
(all EVEN networks).

That's fine.  But then, for all these matched networks, we assign a new 
distance = 255!

Setting an administrative distance of 255 means that all RIP suppliers are by 
default accepted but their information is not put into the routing table, 
correct?

If that's correct, then all these odd routes should not be put in the Routing 
Table.

Yet they are and they appear with AD = 120.

Sorry but I don't get it.

Is that line correct?  Or should it be:

distance 120 150.50.17.1 255.255.255.255 10 

instead of:

distance 255 150.50.17.1 255.255.255.255 10 

Where am I wrong?

Does this command actually assign an AD to the networks being DENIED in the ACL?

That would be the only explanation, although the issue with network 
192.1.10.0/24 still being allowed still troubles me.


C. Valero.

--- 



      


      

Reply via email to