Hi All, Regarding setting tags for routes, I'm all about that in the real world because the tags can be used for many things other than routing loop prevention. But my question is about the "There's a few ways to do this and my task doesn't say anything about which way to do it, restrictions, etc". Is Cisco looking more for the results of it working and ad-hearing to the task, or is it a situation of "There's many ways of doing this, but we WANT it done the Cisco way, even though we didn't specify that you couldn't use another way of doing this".
This is what i've heard some of the nightmare stories about. IMO, if there's no restrictions or no specification on how to do something, if it works at the end of the day, I get the points. Of course, my opinion seems to be completely wrong based on what i've heard from other IE's and soon to be IE's. Comments, clarification, etc ..... all welcome as i'd like to see what others have experienced. -- m On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Carlos Valero <[email protected]>wrote: > > I understand the "Potential" for Routing Loops. > > But I also know that in most cases, *you can always handle that by > "manipulating" the "distance" of each protocol using either the "distance > command" or some other method to accomplish this.* > > I have been told by a couple of guys at IPExpert that *"it is just a > matter of taste"* > > For instance, I know that some guys like Scott Morris (when he was with > IPExpert), are BIG fan of Route Tags. > > I have the Material written by him when he was still there (couple of years > ago) > > After he left, most of the Mock Labs were solved using "Simple > Redistribution" without using Route Tags. > > Then I was told that *"I was VERY unlikely"* to get Route Tag Lab > scenarios in the Real CCIE Lab. > > I was told that about a year ago. > > I just wonder what other people think about this. > > *Is it really "a matter of taste"?* > > I know that if the Lab is written asking specifically to use them, then > there will be no way around. But if they don't ask for it .... I guess I > don't have to use them! > > So the question in other words is: "*How likely are they* (Cisco Proctors) > *to specifically request the use of Route Tags" ??* > > 25% ???, 50% ??? 75%??? > > Thanks! > > > > > > --- On *Fri, 12/10/10, Chris Fata <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: Chris Fata <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Route tagging with redistribution > To: "CCIE_RS OnlineStudyList" <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, December 10, 2010, 4:46 PM > > > Anytime that you are going to be redistributing a protocol into another > and then back into that originating protocol you are going to have potential > for routing loops. > > With that being said.....the exam is designed to test your understanding of > the technology and if I were designing a scenario you can bet I would > introduce potential for loops. > > In short....I would understand this technology backward and forward as this > is fair game on the exam. > > As for real life applications, I am a systems engineer for a consulting > firm and these scenarios come up quite a bit when you’re talking about > redundancy within the topology. > > Think of it this way....even if you do not get redistribution with route > tagging on the exam, it will make you a stronger engineer to fully > understand the technology and disseminate how the router thinks. > > My two cents. > > > > Christopher Fata | 616.528.0660 | CCIE Written, CCNP, MCSE | [image: > Description: Description: Description: Description: small-logo] | > www.netechcorp.com > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Marko Milivojevic > *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2010 4:28 PM > *To:* Carlos Valero > *Cc:* CCIE_RS OnlineStudyList > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Route tagging with redistribution > > > > > > Carlos, > > > > You are very likely to find a scenario that is "best" solved using route > tagging in your lab exam. > > > > -- > > Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 > > Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert > > > > FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture > > > > Mailto: [email protected] <http://mc/[email protected]> > > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > > Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/ > > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:00, Carlos Valero > <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > *I have a general question about Route Tagging.* > > > > Although the general idea seems pretty simple, > > the actual implementation can be VERY complex and it usually leads to BIG > mess! > > > > So my question is: > > > > *How likely are we to find Route Tagging Lab scenarios in the real CCIE > Lab Exam?* > > > > I had been told that it is very unlikely that we'll have to deal with it in > the Exam. > > > > *Is that true? *Should I not pay too much attention to it and basically > "gamble" on the possibility of NOT finding it in the real Lab Exam? > > > > > > *How about real life?* > > > > Does anyone really mess with these Tags in real life? > > > > Or is it a seldom use feature as so many obscure IOS features? > > > > I hope somebody can shed some light on this. > > > > Thanks!! > > > > > > --- On *Mon, 11/2/09, Vikas Sharma > <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > >* wrote: > > > From: Vikas Sharma > <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > > > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Route tagging and redistribution between an IGP > and EGP > To: "CCIE_RS OnlineStudyList" > <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > > > Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 7:13 PM > > Hi Guys, > > > > I need your help out here. I have created a lab in GNS as follows: > > > > R0 - R1 - R2 - R3 all run EIGRP. > > > > R2 - R3 - R4 run BGP as well. > > > > R2 - R3 redistribute EIGRP into BGP and vice versa. > > > > I am attaching a zip file with the drawing plus configs and the NET file. > > > > The intention of this lab is as follows. > > > > 1. R0 and R1 simulate 2 client sites connected together. > 2. We have a route map on each router that sets tags on routes that are > not local to that particular site. > 3. This route map is applied to a distribute list in the direction of > routers R2 and R3 respectively. > 4. I managed to get the EIGRP part working. > 5. However, as far as tagging routes is concerned, for some reason R1 > has stopped tagging routes to send them onwards to R3. It worked yesterday > and not today and I wonder if this is a GNS thing. > 6. On R2 and R3 there is another route map that looks for tags and then > does an as-prepend to make tagged routes more expensive and send them to R4 > which is like a remote site router. The idea is that BGP must see 2 paths > which we influence, in its routing table and should one of the sites > (either > R0 or R1) goes off the air it should automatically be able to use the > second > path to reach that network. > 7. When I apply the redistribute statement with the route map in BGP on > routers R2 and R3, I find that the BGP routing table has only a few > networks > learnt and no alternative path. > 8. I then took off the redistribute eigrp statement off the BGP config > and re-added it in without the route-map and lo and behold, I see all the > routes on R4 and each have an alternative path. Result is exactly as I want > but I want to influence the routes in BGP. So, basically, if routes > originating on R0 and seen on R2, the routing on R4 for those networks > should be via R2 and not R3. Right now I'm not able to influence these > routing decisions. > > However, without the route-map, it works beautifully but I want to use > route tagging to influence how BGP decides where to route and have an > alternative path. > > > > I look forward to your feedback. > > > > Cheers, > > -- > Vikas Sharma > Network Specialist > Fujitsu Australia > (M): 0421 052 117 > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This electronic transmission and any attachments > constitute confidential information which is intended only for the named > recipient(s) and may be legally privileged. If you have received this > communication in error, please contact the sender immediately. Any > disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning > the > contents of this communication by anyone other than the named recipient(s) > is strictly prohibited. > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
