Well, yes ; but based on my most recent visit to RTP if you are not to remove any configuration it will be specified, and of it is not specified I'd use the most direct and logical approach. There is not enough time in the TS to give this much thought on these topics. Even in a praticul world "if there is one" I would never want to learn the Lo0 through BGP if it is to be your peer IP, as this would never work.
Regards, Joe Sanchez ( please excuse the brevity of this email as it was sent via a mobile device. Please excuse misspelled words or sentence structure.) On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Nick Bonifacio <[email protected]> wrote: > But best practice is out the window in the lab, right? > > Are we both correct and satisfy the task? > > Sorry, but I have this friend and his initials are O.C.D. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 14, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Marko Milivojevic <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I like what I read. I like it very much :-) >> >> -- >> Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S) >> Senior CCIE Instructor - IPexpert >> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Joe Sanchez <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Nick, when I did this lab I thought the same thing, but after looking at >>> the idea of using some other method of learning the lo0 via BGP and an IGP >>> I thought about how would the backdoor command come into play; which it >>> would never help because if you loose the IGP route and the 1.1.1.1 was >>> populated into the BGP table, we would drop the connection anyways, >>> therefore removing the network statement from R1 was the only logical >>> answer I could come up with. In this particular case there is a single >>> connection with two peers from R1s perspective. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Joe Sanchez >>> >>> ( please excuse the brevity of this email as it was sent via a mobile >>> device. Please excuse misspelled words or sentence structure.) >>> >>> On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:03 AM, Nick Bonifacio <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Spoiler alert: Do not read ahead if you have not done this lab/question >>>> yet! >>>> >>>> >>>> Ticket 5 is as follows: >>>> "The BGP peering between R1 and R2/R4 is flapping and needs to be >>>> stabilized. Please correct the problem." >>>> >>>> >>>> From my first look at R2 and R4, it appears that they are learning about >>>> 1.1.1.1 (update source) through BGP which would of course cause problems. >>>> The solution is to remove network 1.1.1.1 mask 255.255.255.255 from router >>>> 1, but to me this seems like it would go against "keep the spirit of the >>>> config". >>>> >>>> What I did on R2 and R4: >>>> >>>> >>>> router bgp 2456 >>>> network 1.1.1.1 mask 255.255.255.255 backdoor >>>> >>>> This makes the preferred route to 1.1.1.1 over OSPF instead of BGP by >>>> making the distance of the 1.1.1.1 route 200 and keeps the config intact. >>>> >>>> Is this a better/worse solution? Do I not understand the function of the >>>> BGP backdoor? >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> Nick >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >>>> visit www.ipexpert.com >>>> >>>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>>> >>>> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs >>> _______________________________________________ >>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >>> visit www.ipexpert.com >>> >>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>> >>> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
