That is ok. I am afraid in this case the lab needs to be taken into consideration. Summary-external not really applicable in this case...
Anybody else who is familiar with this scenario cares to comment? Thanks in advance! Stan On 8/30/09 9:22 AM, "prakash patel" <[email protected]> wrote: > I do not read lab when I answer > > Summary-external means " any external routes to any protocol" > > If they belong to same supernet, does any of your internal subnet falls within > the range if you summarize the external routes ? If not then summarize > > > > > > > Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:17:04 -0700 > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Volume 3 - Lab 5, redistribution > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Prakash, > > Thanks for your reply! Yes, they do belong to the same supernet. In addition > to, ³summary-external² would be applicable to the redistribution into OSPF, > not EIGRP. In this case EIGRP domain receives the more specific routes. > > Cheers, > Stan > > > On 8/30/09 9:01 AM, "prakash patel" <[email protected] > <http://hotmail.com/> > wrote: > >> If they belong to the same super net , then you should worry and ask. But if >> not , then do "summary-external" >> >> >> >> >> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:56:38 -0700 >> From: [email protected] <http://gmail.com/> >> To: [email protected] <http://onlinestudylist.com/> >> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Volume 3 - Lab 5, redistribution >> >> Hi everybody! >> >> I am sure I am probably overreading the Volume 3 - Lab 5 questions, but here >> is the dilemma: >> >> 1.) Task 3.6: redistribution as needed to ensure all interfaces are reachable >> from all devices - PG and Video walktrhough both solve it by enabling mutual >> redistribution on R4, R5,R8. However this will bring all more specific >> networks from BB2 into the topology. Task 3.3 (OSPF), does asks us to >> summarize those same BB3 networks in such a way that : the rest of the >> topology sees a single route for the networks from the backbone". Now if the >> question was " the rest of the OSPF domain" or something similar, no problem >> there. >> >> How do we approach such a discrepancy at exam time? Would that be a legit >> proctor question? >> >> 2.) I simply solved it to both cover Task 3.3 and Task 3.6 by not >> redistributing OPSF into EIGRP on R5. Reachability is still maintained (yes, >> suboptimal routing), but BB2 networks are only seen as a single summary >> throughout the topology. Since there is no requirement for redundancy, I >> think this should be a valid solution or am I missing something? >> >> Any thoughts would be appreciated. >> >> Thanks, >> Stan >> >> >> Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now. >> <http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:W >> M_HYGN_faster:082009> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com > > > Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you¹re up to on > Facebook. Find out more. > <http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON: > WL:en-US:SI_SB_facebook:082009>
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
