before i start i will say i have only taken the lab once, passed the troubleshooting but didn't make the configuration section, ran out of time because i made one big mistake (mis-configured all the interfaces so just reset to default) and then lost my composure and didn't stick to my plan, but nothing in there i didn't know how to do or couldn't have solved time permitting of course and that is the thing isn't it...
i think the thing about this is going to be like you are saying if you didn't think about the other way then use the tunnel, but in most cases that is going to be a last resort option and in most cases it shouldn't have to come to that... cause the thing is the first grading is going to come from an a grading script that is parsing through the configs looking for the answers they are looking for, so if the script is just looking for the peering session good to go, but if it is looking for a specific feature set in the config then you will not get the points unless you make it to when they do a manual review, or a regrade attempt... i think the thing then to do is not "over think" any of the solutions and if something seems extreme to get something that should be simpler to work then it probably is not the solution they are looking for... this is why you always hear about the lab being a certain percentage of mental vs. technical solutions and skills... and the last thing i would say is if you are thinking that much into the solutions and answers and questions then you are well on your way to getting to the point you will pass the lab anyways... just my 2 cents... HTH, garry -- Garry L. Baker "There is no 'patch' for stupidity." - www.sqlsecurity.com On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Cody Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a question for everyone. I'm using a variety of vendors' > workbooks to work on labs and have run across something that has been > bothering me. Not so much a question about any lab but more of a > general thing. If the lab you are working on doesn't expressly forbid > a solution, is it okay to use it? More specifically the use of > tunnels to solve some issues. > > Here is an example of what I mean. You have two routers that you are > told to set up as EBGP peers. Router 1 (R1) is in AS 100 and router 2 > (R2) is in AS 200. Let's assume that they are connected to a common > vlan using f0/1. R1 has an ip of 10.0.0.1/24 with a secondary ip of > 10.1.1.1/24. R1 has an ip of 10.1.1.2/24 with a secondary ip of > 10.0.0.2/24. You are told to set up the peering without using the > secondary addresses. > > R1 > int f0/1 > ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 > ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 secondary > > R2 > int f0/1 > ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.0 > ip address 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.0 secondary > > One way to do this would be to set your neighbor statements within BGP > to point to each of the primary addresses. In order to get the peer > to come up you will need to add "update-source f0/1" for one of the > neighbor statements. > > R1 > router bgp 100 > neighbor 10.1.1.2 remote-as 200 > neighbor 10.1.1.2 update-source f0/1 > > R2 > router bgp 200 > neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 100 > > This works well. Another way would be create a tunnel, assign it some > addresses and set the peering relationship through it. While not the > best solution, it would work. Probably not a good example, but it one > that comes to mind. > > So I guess the gist of my question is this, if for some reason you > can't get something to work for you and for what ever reason you can't > come up with another solution. In the example above, say for whatever > reason you just didn't think of using update-source on one of the ends > and the tunnel was the only way you could get it to work, would this > be acceptable in the lab. While obviously not the optimal solution, > it does work and it doesn't violate any of the rules of the scenario. > Is it cool to use something like this in the lab? > > Like I said, not a big deal, just something that's been bugging me. I > have had a couple of instances where I have noticed that you could > come up with a similar soluton. Hopefully hs makes sense. > > Thanks. > Cody > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
