I think you need to take a step back and look carefully at your methodology.
The CCIE lab is NOT a "only one correct answer" test. You are given requirements, and those need to be met. Beyond that, you still have a lot of flexibility. The CCIE lab is also not a "best practice" test, and you will often be asked to do things that you should not do in a production environment. Each of the labs in the Version 10 workbook has been reviewed by multiple CCIEs, most of which have at least 2 CCIEs. In this review process, they have determined that the solution provided did indeed meet the section requirements. It is VERY possible that the particular solution used for a task is not necessarily the first thing that a candidate would have thought of, oftent times, this sort of solution is used to illustrate a "different method of configuration". Again, either method would work. When making routing policy, it is generally a good idea to consider what would happen if additional routes were added in the future. Either blocking the routes inbound, or setting them as no-advertise would prevent added routes from being advertised. The point of the statement about adding routes in the future was more to make sure that only the existing routes were matched in the policy. Otherwise, the route-map could have just had a set statement and not a match statement for the 20 clause. If the lab had specifically stated that R2 should still receive the routes and have them locally, but not advertise, then blocking the routes inbound would not meet the objective. Marvin Greenlee, CCIE #12237 (R&S, SP, Sec) Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 Fax: +1.810.454.0130 Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Progress or excuses, which one are you making? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Suresh Mishra Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:45 PM To: OSL CCIE Routing and Switching Lab Exam Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol2-LAB8-Task4.2 Hello Marvin, I need your help in understanding this question. We have this task and it says at the end that "additional routes could be added in the future. R2 should not advertise any of the additional routes" In this question R2 is receiving routes from R1 and is advertising to other routers. I think answer to this question requires that we should have a route-map statement at the end of the route-map with "no-advertise" community string set. The P.G solution does not have it. Instead it relies on the explicit deny at the end of the route map. In that case R2 will not receive the routes from R1. I think the LAB wants R2 to not advertise the route but it should still accept the routes from R1. Thanks Suresh
