Volume II Section 14 Task 1.2 Please read the task carefully. You will find the "any routing table " Word.
Thanks Suresh On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Marvin Greenlee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nowhere in the question does it state that it needs to be in ALL the routing > tables. > > If the section said "these networks should show up as a connected route in > all routing tables" that would be different. > > > > 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: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:35 PM > To: Marvin Greenlee > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP > > Well, I think the question itself has no real meaning to it and should > be restated in the next version. > I still appreciate your viewpoint but I think I have clear > disagreement with you here. > > The CCIE LAB is very critical in terms of stating questions and most > of the time the questions are hidden and looking for tasks that can > only be implemented with certain commands. > > So for us as CCIE candidates, it becomes very important to read the > question carefully and make sure that we meet the stated objectives in > the question. I would like to re-phrase the question one more time to > explain you the confusion. > > "The 172.16.1.0/24 and 172.16.2.0/24 subnets should only appear in any > routing table as a connected route." > > The words here are very important, first being "any routing table" . > We all know that route will appear as connected on the router where it > is configured or configure a static route using physical interface > instead of default gateway. > > When you say any routing table. That means it will appear as connected > in all the routers routing table. That definitly needs correction. > > If you read the comment by jared earlier, he said that you guys have > intentionally made some questions harder and I belive that where this > questions falls in. > > I see this question as being incorrectly stated and confusing rather > than challenging. hence it has no relevence to CCIE LAB in my view. > > With that said, I still belive that most of the questions in the > workbook are correct and most of the answers are also correct. Overall > it is very helpful resource. > > thanks > Suresh > > Suresh > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Marvin Greenlee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> "these subnets should only appear in routing tables as connected routes" >> "do not add these subnets to any routing protocol" >> >> These two phrases are asking the same thing. Understanding the technology >> of how the routing table works should make it quite clear that if you are >> adding a network to a routing protocol, then somebody will probably see it >> as something other than a connected route. >> >> >> The lab is all about being able to interpret wording, and understanding > the >> technologies deep enough that you can understand what is being asked. It > is >> VERY likely that you will see something early in the lab, either in the >> introductory wording, or in an early section, that will affect how a later >> task will be accomplished. It could be something like "do not configure > any >> static routes unless specifically allowed in a section" or "make sure that >> all interfaces are reachable from all devices at the end of the lab." >> >> The point of a practice lab is to challenge you to make sure that you >> understand the technologies, no matter how the questions are written. >> >> Reading through the sentence should tell you that the sentence itself > isn't >> asking you to configure anything, just that there is a guideline that must >> be followed. >> >> Also, you should be in the practice of READING THE ENTIRE LAB and DRAWING > A >> DIAGRAM. If you have a diagram, and you are including routing protocol >> information, adding that those networks are not going to be in a routing >> protocol should be on the diagram. >> >> If you've worked all the way through to section 14, and you don't > understand >> how next hop inaccessibility can cause problems in BGP, then I suggest > that >> you stop working on the multiprotocol scenarios, and go back and focus on >> the individual technologies. >> >> Which part of this do you think "has no relation to the actual CCIE LAB": >> reading the whole lab? >> drawing a diagram? >> understanding the technologies? >> >> 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: Friday, July 11, 2008 1:05 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: Marvin Greenlee; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP >> >> Well, I am working on LAB14 task 1.2 The task reads as follows. >> >> >> "The 172.16.1.0/24 and 172.16.2.0/24 subnets should only appear in any >> routing table as a connected route" >> >> After reading this I was confused, because to me connected route is >> something that has a physical interface associated with it. Also, I am >> not sure how to advertise a route as a connected route in a routing >> domain. >> >> The answer to this question was a suprise to me. Actually, all it >> wants us to use the bgp next-hop-self command when advertising routes >> to IBGP peers. This task even does not appear in the BGP section. It >> is part of basic configuration. >> >> I would like to know if this is something that is going to be only in >> ipexperts LAB guide and has no relation with the actual CCIE LAB. >> >> Reading these type of questions demotivates us because we don't know >> what to think and how to think. Its impossible for me to think of >> connected routes being associated with ibgp next-hop-self command. >> >> Thanks >> >> Suresh >> >> Thanks >> >> Suresh >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Jared Scrivener >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hey guys, >>> >>> I thought I'd post a comment here to dispel a popular myth. >>> >>> The CCIE is NOT a language exam more than a technical exam. If you KNOW >> what >>> you are doing, and what it will affect, the questions are clear and >>> straightforward. >>> >>> If anything, the materials written by vendors like us prefer to err on > the >>> side of vagueness, rather than give away the answer - we do this so that >> in >>> your pondering of what we are asking you consider alternative options. It >> is >>> intentional, but sometimes annoying - that is why we have OSL for you to >>> request clarification. :) >>> >>> I only say this as I don't want people to feel that they have an >> additional >>> battle to fight on top of the technical one - the exams from Cisco (in my >>> experience) are challenging but clearly worded. If they use "strange" >>> wording it is probably copied and pasted from the DocCD (much like a lot >> of >>> our questions are if we do the same thing). >>> >>> It is my opinion (as both a student and instructor) that for the most > part >>> the real CCIE lab exam questions are clearer but ALSO easier than ours, >> and >>> the two are intertwined. We add ambiguity as a challenge and we push you >>> harder. I could easily write a question that says "do this" and "do that" >>> and you could follow it and configure it, but that wouldn't push you >> enough, >>> nor teach you as broadly. When we write materials we often write > questions >>> in such a way that your mind will consider many different answers. >>> Effectively we've tested you and trained you on multiple things, which >>> direct questioning cannot do. >>> >>> I found it frustrating at times as a student when I would configure a >>> question differently to how the author of the PG did. But after looking > at >>> both mine and their solution, and identifying both the correct and >> incorrect >>> elements of each, and realising I could interpret the questions >> differently >>> and the nuances of each method the light bulb went on for me: I was ready >> to >>> pass. >>> >>> Some people often post questions as to other ways the question could be >>> interpreted - keep doing that, as it stimulates discussion and forces >>> thought. >>> >>> The critical thinking ability is NOT what the lab tests for, but it IS >> what >>> will ensure that you know you are ready to pass (and it will ensure that >>> when you get CCIE-level jobs, you are prepared for them as the real world >> is >>> oftentimes stranger than the lab). >>> >>> As Einstein said - "Any fool can know. The point is to understand." >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Jared Scrivener CCIE2 #16983 (R&S, Security), CISSP >>> Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. >>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 >>> Fax: +1.810.454.0130 >>> Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Blog: jaredscrivener.com >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Suresh Mishra >>> Sent: Thursday, 10 July 2008 7:27 PM >>> To: Marvin Greenlee >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP >>> >>> Hi Tony, >>> >>> This is the beginning of CCIE. Soon you will come to know that it is >>> more of a language exam than a challenging technical exam. I mean >>> learning technical things using non-technical language. >>> >>> When I read the question for the first time in cisco press book that >>> says do not use dynamic PVC's, my first reaction was to not use an >>> SVC( Switched virtual circuit). Later on I come to know that it was >>> about disabling inverse-arp. >>> >>> Something like this "Make sure that router R5 uses different ID to >>> avoid loop in the network" for a BGP router means you need to use >>> route-reflector cluster. >>> >>> Well, welcome to the technical world of CCIE. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Suresh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Marvin Greenlee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> Sometimes locally generated traffic doesn't properly hit outbound >>>> ACLs/policies. Did you verify that you saw matches (counters > increasing) >>> on >>>> the EIGRP traffic class? >>>> >>>> Also, how were you matching the traffic, match prot eigrp, or with an >> ACL. >>>> If using an ACL, make sure that you are matching both the destination of >>>> either 224.0.0.10 or the neighbor's address. >>>> >>>> The CCIE lab is full of situations where you can be asked to do a normal >>>> thing, but then told to not do it a certain way. >>>> >>>> On a side note, the "ip bandwidth-percent eigrp" is a very interesting >>>> command, because it is a percentage command that will allow you to >> specify >>> a >>>> number greater than 100, which could be used if the bandwidth on the >>>> interface was set to a lower value than what the circuit actually was. >>>> >>>> Just curious, is there a reason why you chose policing over shaping? >>>> >>>> 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 Tony Hidalgo >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:46 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP >>>> >>>> Hello people from the list. >>>> >>>> On the "Focus Labs", Section 9 (EIGRP), question 9.18 it is requested to >>> set >>>> the EIGRP bandwidth of a FR link to 37.5%. This WITHOUT using an >> interface >>>> based command (that would be the ip bandwidth eigrp AS# %). >>>> >>>> The PG gives a funky solution of actually changing the BW of the >> interface >>>> itself. I frankly disagree with that answer although it may accomplish >> the >>>> goal from some perspective. >>>> >>>> The solution that I thought of was MQC. I created an ACL to match eigrp >>>> traffic. Then a policy map to "police cir 579000" (579K). This because >> the >>>> BW of the interface is 1544Ks (default) and this represents the 37.5% of >>> the >>>> total BW of the FR interface. Then, I applied the policy map OUTBOUND on >>> the >>>> interface in question. >>>> >>>> Since I am not breaking any rules or requirements, does this look like a >>>> valid solution?? >>>> >>>> THX >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
