Hi Jared, Yes, I do agree with you.
Thanks Suresh On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Jared Scrivener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's a great point, Suresh. > > Asking the proctor during your lab whenever you are in doubt about your > chosen strategy is a good idea. The worst they can do is say no, but the > process of trying to formulate a good question actually helps you to think. > > Cheers, > > Jared Scrivener CCIE2 #16983 (R&S, Security), CISSP > > Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. > > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > Fax: +1.810.454.0130 > Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Suresh Mishra > Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2008 5:19 PM > To: Marvin Greenlee > Cc: OSL CCIE Routing and Switching Lab Exam > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] VOL2-LAB9-task-4.2 > > Hi Marvin, > > That make sense. I think it would be very difficult for any CCIE > candidate to pass CCIE without asking some clarification questions to > proctor. > > > Thanks > Suresh > > > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Marvin Greenlee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> "situational awareness" - 'awareness of the situation', knowledge and >> awareness of the environment. >> >> For the scope of the lab, beyond the task itself, you should be aware of >> what section you are in and what you are asked to do. >> >> Since this task is specifically in the BGP section, the conclusion that >> should be drawn is that this is referring specifically to BGP, not OSPF to >> OSPF information. Asking the proctor for clarification would be >> recommended, if you are unsure is always recommended. >> >> Had this section been under OSPF, then possibly filtering between the two >> routers would be the direction to take. >> >> 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: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:56 PM >> To: OSL CCIE Routing and Switching Lab Exam >> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] VOL2-LAB9-task-4.2 >> >> Hell all, >> >> In this section R2 is redistributing OSPF into BGP and is advertising >> it to R6. At the same time, R2 and R6 are ospf neighbors and are >> advertising ospf routes to each other. Now there is a question in >> this section that reads as follows. >> >> "R6 should not receive any routes from R2 that are from the ospf >> domain. No network statements are allowed.". >> >> After reading this question, I used "ip ospf database" filter command >> and filtered all the LSA's that were send to R6 from R2 as I was not >> allowed to use network statement that would allow me to disable OSPF >> on the interface. >> >> However, P.G uses a solution where it filtered OSPF routes that were >> redistributed into BGP. I think this question wants us to not have the >> ospf routes propagated to the OSPF neighbors via BGP routes. >> >> I think this question needs one simple modification. Instead of saying >> "any ospf routes" that includes OSPF routes only (as per the English >> language understanding), Instead it should say BGP routes. That means >> it should read something like this. >> >> "R6 should not receive any BGP routes from R2 that are from the ospf >> domain. No network statements are allowed" >> >> >> I know there will always be a language issue with CCIE. But I think >> making something difficult by using a language twist makes it more >> confusing than technically challenging. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> Suresh >> >> > >
