Yes.
Regards, Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S and Security Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 Cell: +1.248.504.7309 Fax: +1.810.454.0130 Mailto: [email protected] Join our free online support and peer group communities: <http://www.IPexpert.com/communities> http://www.IPexpert.com/communities IPexpert - The Global Leader in Self-Study, Classroom-Based, Video On Demand and Audio Certification Training Tools for the Cisco CCIE R&S Lab, CCIE Security Lab, CCIE Service Provider Lab , CCIE Voice Lab and CCIE Storage Lab Certifications. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bauke Dzavhale Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] LAB 10-Vol 2- Task 3-2 [see also LAB 8 - vol 2 Task 2-2] Team, Two questions regarding this task: 1- Instead of using #frame-relay interface-dlci 69, under the #int mfr1 69, could we use frame-relay map ip x.x.x.x 69 brodcast? 2- Because we have no real Frame-Relay switch, the solution uses the command frame-relay intf-type dce in R9 to simulate the Frame-relay switch. My question is could not we just tell the routers not to expect LMI from the Frame-Relay switch [since there is none] via #no keepalive command? PS: Few weeks ago Antonio Dee Hotmail posted a solution for a problem similar to this one using only 1 DLCI and "#no keepalive". [see email about LAB 8 Vol 2- Task 2-2, posted on "Sun, 5/31/09" in this mailing list]. I did the same thing and it worked. Would that be an acceptable solution? Thanks Bauke _____ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/> All-new Yahoo! Mail
