Thanks marvin. It was very helpful. In fact it explained the situation very well.
Thanks Suresh On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Language will always be an issue with the CCIE lab. You should get in the > habit of thinking through different ways that sections could be configured, > and be ready to ask the proctor for clarification. > > Let me clarify the section a different way. > > I misread the section in my quick reply earlier, this is referring to the > external peering to R6, not the internal peering. > > With a single peering statement between R5 and R6, there are a few > possibilities. > 1. Peer between the Ethernet networks. > 2. Peer between the frame networks. > 3. Peer between loopbacks. > > Peering between loopbacks will be the most stable, because the loss of a > physical interface would not stop the peering from forming. > > Rather that stating "the peering should be as stable as possible", the > section could have been written as: > "ensure that the peering is still up even if a physical interface fails on > R5 or R6" > "do not peer between physical interfaces" > "peer between loopback interfaces" > > As a CCIE candidate, it is CRITICAL to understand different methods that the > same task can be worded. Throughout the workbook, tasks are written in > different methods on purpose to highlight this. Given the three choices > above, the statement asking for stability eliminates the first two, leaving > the third as the valid option. In this case, the extra wording asking for > stability is there as a hint as to which method is correct for the section, > and which ones are not. > > > > > > Marvin Greenlee, CCIE #12237 (R&S, SP, Sec) > Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > Fax: +1.810.454.0130 > Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Progress or excuses, which one are you making? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Mishra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:29 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: OSL CCIE Routing and Switching Lab Exam > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol2 -LAB8 - BGP task 4.1 > > I got your point. In that sense all the peering statements are single > only. But the point is why to state "single peering statement" as a > requirement to achive the stability. > > Its more of a lanuage issue then putting the technical point in > perspective. I think the laguage has to be tuned correctly to avoid > the confusion. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > > On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 5:38 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Neighbor x.x.x.x remote-as yyy" is a peering statement. If you are > unclear >> as what the proctor considers a "peering statement", that would be time to >> get clarification. >> >> I would not consider setting route-maps, distribute-lists, update source, > or >> ebgp multihop as "peering statements" >> >> With multiple paths in the network, loopback peering will provide more >> stability. >> >> The point of the section is to get you to not use a full mesh for the ibgp >> peerings. >> >> >> Marvin Greenlee, CCIE #12237 (R&S, SP, Sec) >> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. >> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 >> Fax: +1.810.454.0130 >> Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Progress or excuses, which one are you making? >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Suresh Mishra >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:56 PM >> To: OSL CCIE Routing and Switching Lab Exam >> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol2 -LAB8 - BGP task 4.1 >> >> Hello all, >> >> There is question in this section that says "Configure R5 to peer to >> R6. Use single peering statement. This peering should be as stable as >> possible". >> >> The answer to this question in the proctor guide has peering >> configured between the loopback addresses of the two ebgp peers which >> requires three statements. >> >> I think that should be changed to include one statement by using the >> physical link addresses between the two peers or change the question >> to not have the requirement of stable connection. >> >> If there is a need for stable connection then we need to remove the >> restriction of single statement as it is possible to peer in a single >> statement in BGP using direct link addresses. >> >> Thanks >> Suresh >> >> > >
