Nick, believe me... I understand, I have the same Best Friend and getting through the lab exam in time is very tough for me because I psychoanalys everything.
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
