Hey Derek, The no summary-address restriction refers to the blocking of 100.0.0.9.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Mills, Derek < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello IPExperts-- just following up on this. Let me know if I need to > state something differently or if I need to include more information. > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mills, Derek > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:40 AM > *To:* CCIE OSL > *Subject:* [OSL | CCIE_RS] Workbook 2, lab 9, task 3.1 > > > Here is part of the task info: > > . > . > . > On R9, configure three loopback interfaces with the subnets of: > 140.10.8.0 > 140.10.10.0 > 140.10.11.0 > > Configure R9 so it will send one route to cover those networks and the > network attached to its Ethernet interface. > > Do not use distribute-filters or summary-address for this step. > . > . > . > > However, the DSG lists this as the solution for the summary requirement: > > "In order to configure R9 to not receive queries, configure as a stub > area.* Configure the summary for the four networks on the interface > connecting to R6*." > > . > . > . > R9(config) # int multi1 > R9(config-if) # ip summary-address eigrp 1 140.10.8.0 255.255.252.0 > . > . > . > > Is there something going on with using stub in this task that makes this > use of the ip summary-address statement "not count"? > > *Derek Mills* > > > > ------------------------------ > Anheuser-Busch InBev Email Disclaimer > www.ab-inbev.com<http://www.ab-inbev.com/disclaimer.cfm> > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > -- Bryan Bartik CCIE #23707 (R&S, SP), CCNP Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc. URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
