Basically you are saying "every routing table". Question says " any routing table"
Back to square one. Its language exam than being a technical exam. Thanks Suresh On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Marvin Greenlee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As the proctor would say, "you're reading too much into the question". > > "should only appear in any routing table as a connected route" > > Is not the same as > > "should appear in every routing table as a connected route" > > If you choose to interpret that the networks need to be on every router, > then you could add loopbacks as needed on each device that did not have the > networks locally. > > > 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: Suresh Mishra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:30 PM > To: Marvin Greenlee > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP > > Volume II > Section 14 > Task 1.2 > > Please read the task carefully. You will find the "any routing table " Word. > > Thanks > Suresh > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Marvin Greenlee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Nowhere in the question does it state that it needs to be in ALL the > routing >> tables. >> >> If the section said "these networks should show up as a connected route in >> all routing tables" that would be different. >> >> >> >> 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: Suresh Mishra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:35 PM >> To: Marvin Greenlee >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP >> >> Well, I think the question itself has no real meaning to it and should >> be restated in the next version. >> I still appreciate your viewpoint but I think I have clear >> disagreement with you here. >> >> The CCIE LAB is very critical in terms of stating questions and most >> of the time the questions are hidden and looking for tasks that can >> only be implemented with certain commands. >> >> So for us as CCIE candidates, it becomes very important to read the >> question carefully and make sure that we meet the stated objectives in >> the question. I would like to re-phrase the question one more time to >> explain you the confusion. >> >> "The 172.16.1.0/24 and 172.16.2.0/24 subnets should only appear in any >> routing table as a connected route." >> >> The words here are very important, first being "any routing table" . >> We all know that route will appear as connected on the router where it >> is configured or configure a static route using physical interface >> instead of default gateway. >> >> When you say any routing table. That means it will appear as connected >> in all the routers routing table. That definitly needs correction. >> >> If you read the comment by jared earlier, he said that you guys have >> intentionally made some questions harder and I belive that where this >> questions falls in. >> >> I see this question as being incorrectly stated and confusing rather >> than challenging. hence it has no relevence to CCIE LAB in my view. >> >> With that said, I still belive that most of the questions in the >> workbook are correct and most of the answers are also correct. Overall >> it is very helpful resource. >> >> thanks >> Suresh >> >> Suresh >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Marvin Greenlee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> "these subnets should only appear in routing tables as connected routes" >>> "do not add these subnets to any routing protocol" >>> >>> These two phrases are asking the same thing. Understanding the > technology >>> of how the routing table works should make it quite clear that if you are >>> adding a network to a routing protocol, then somebody will probably see > it >>> as something other than a connected route. >>> >>> >>> The lab is all about being able to interpret wording, and understanding >> the >>> technologies deep enough that you can understand what is being asked. It >> is >>> VERY likely that you will see something early in the lab, either in the >>> introductory wording, or in an early section, that will affect how a > later >>> task will be accomplished. It could be something like "do not configure >> any >>> static routes unless specifically allowed in a section" or "make sure > that >>> all interfaces are reachable from all devices at the end of the lab." >>> >>> The point of a practice lab is to challenge you to make sure that you >>> understand the technologies, no matter how the questions are written. >>> >>> Reading through the sentence should tell you that the sentence itself >> isn't >>> asking you to configure anything, just that there is a guideline that > must >>> be followed. >>> >>> Also, you should be in the practice of READING THE ENTIRE LAB and DRAWING >> A >>> DIAGRAM. If you have a diagram, and you are including routing protocol >>> information, adding that those networks are not going to be in a routing >>> protocol should be on the diagram. >>> >>> If you've worked all the way through to section 14, and you don't >> understand >>> how next hop inaccessibility can cause problems in BGP, then I suggest >> that >>> you stop working on the multiprotocol scenarios, and go back and focus on >>> the individual technologies. >>> >>> Which part of this do you think "has no relation to the actual CCIE LAB": >>> reading the whole lab? >>> drawing a diagram? >>> understanding the technologies? >>> >>> 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: Suresh Mishra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 1:05 PM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Cc: Marvin Greenlee; [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP >>> >>> Well, I am working on LAB14 task 1.2 The task reads as follows. >>> >>> >>> "The 172.16.1.0/24 and 172.16.2.0/24 subnets should only appear in any >>> routing table as a connected route" >>> >>> After reading this I was confused, because to me connected route is >>> something that has a physical interface associated with it. Also, I am >>> not sure how to advertise a route as a connected route in a routing >>> domain. >>> >>> The answer to this question was a suprise to me. Actually, all it >>> wants us to use the bgp next-hop-self command when advertising routes >>> to IBGP peers. This task even does not appear in the BGP section. It >>> is part of basic configuration. >>> >>> I would like to know if this is something that is going to be only in >>> ipexperts LAB guide and has no relation with the actual CCIE LAB. >>> >>> Reading these type of questions demotivates us because we don't know >>> what to think and how to think. Its impossible for me to think of >>> connected routes being associated with ibgp next-hop-self command. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Suresh >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Suresh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Jared Scrivener >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Hey guys, >>>> >>>> I thought I'd post a comment here to dispel a popular myth. >>>> >>>> The CCIE is NOT a language exam more than a technical exam. If you KNOW >>> what >>>> you are doing, and what it will affect, the questions are clear and >>>> straightforward. >>>> >>>> If anything, the materials written by vendors like us prefer to err on >> the >>>> side of vagueness, rather than give away the answer - we do this so that >>> in >>>> your pondering of what we are asking you consider alternative options. > It >>> is >>>> intentional, but sometimes annoying - that is why we have OSL for you to >>>> request clarification. :) >>>> >>>> I only say this as I don't want people to feel that they have an >>> additional >>>> battle to fight on top of the technical one - the exams from Cisco (in > my >>>> experience) are challenging but clearly worded. If they use "strange" >>>> wording it is probably copied and pasted from the DocCD (much like a lot >>> of >>>> our questions are if we do the same thing). >>>> >>>> It is my opinion (as both a student and instructor) that for the most >> part >>>> the real CCIE lab exam questions are clearer but ALSO easier than ours, >>> and >>>> the two are intertwined. We add ambiguity as a challenge and we push you >>>> harder. I could easily write a question that says "do this" and "do > that" >>>> and you could follow it and configure it, but that wouldn't push you >>> enough, >>>> nor teach you as broadly. When we write materials we often write >> questions >>>> in such a way that your mind will consider many different answers. >>>> Effectively we've tested you and trained you on multiple things, which >>>> direct questioning cannot do. >>>> >>>> I found it frustrating at times as a student when I would configure a >>>> question differently to how the author of the PG did. But after looking >> at >>>> both mine and their solution, and identifying both the correct and >>> incorrect >>>> elements of each, and realising I could interpret the questions >>> differently >>>> and the nuances of each method the light bulb went on for me: I was > ready >>> to >>>> pass. >>>> >>>> Some people often post questions as to other ways the question could be >>>> interpreted - keep doing that, as it stimulates discussion and forces >>>> thought. >>>> >>>> The critical thinking ability is NOT what the lab tests for, but it IS >>> what >>>> will ensure that you know you are ready to pass (and it will ensure that >>>> when you get CCIE-level jobs, you are prepared for them as the real > world >>> is >>>> oftentimes stranger than the lab). >>>> >>>> As Einstein said - "Any fool can know. The point is to understand." >>>> >>>> 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] >>>> Blog: jaredscrivener.com >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Suresh Mishra >>>> Sent: Thursday, 10 July 2008 7:27 PM >>>> To: Marvin Greenlee >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP >>>> >>>> Hi Tony, >>>> >>>> This is the beginning of CCIE. Soon you will come to know that it is >>>> more of a language exam than a challenging technical exam. I mean >>>> learning technical things using non-technical language. >>>> >>>> When I read the question for the first time in cisco press book that >>>> says do not use dynamic PVC's, my first reaction was to not use an >>>> SVC( Switched virtual circuit). Later on I come to know that it was >>>> about disabling inverse-arp. >>>> >>>> Something like this "Make sure that router R5 uses different ID to >>>> avoid loop in the network" for a BGP router means you need to use >>>> route-reflector cluster. >>>> >>>> Well, welcome to the technical world of CCIE. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Suresh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Marvin Greenlee > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Sometimes locally generated traffic doesn't properly hit outbound >>>>> ACLs/policies. Did you verify that you saw matches (counters >> increasing) >>>> on >>>>> the EIGRP traffic class? >>>>> >>>>> Also, how were you matching the traffic, match prot eigrp, or with an >>> ACL. >>>>> If using an ACL, make sure that you are matching both the destination > of >>>>> either 224.0.0.10 or the neighbor's address. >>>>> >>>>> The CCIE lab is full of situations where you can be asked to do a > normal >>>>> thing, but then told to not do it a certain way. >>>>> >>>>> On a side note, the "ip bandwidth-percent eigrp" is a very interesting >>>>> command, because it is a percentage command that will allow you to >>> specify >>>> a >>>>> number greater than 100, which could be used if the bandwidth on the >>>>> interface was set to a lower value than what the circuit actually was. >>>>> >>>>> Just curious, is there a reason why you chose policing over shaping? >>>>> >>>>> 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 Tony Hidalgo >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:46 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP >>>>> >>>>> Hello people from the list. >>>>> >>>>> On the "Focus Labs", Section 9 (EIGRP), question 9.18 it is requested > to >>>> set >>>>> the EIGRP bandwidth of a FR link to 37.5%. This WITHOUT using an >>> interface >>>>> based command (that would be the ip bandwidth eigrp AS# %). >>>>> >>>>> The PG gives a funky solution of actually changing the BW of the >>> interface >>>>> itself. I frankly disagree with that answer although it may accomplish >>> the >>>>> goal from some perspective. >>>>> >>>>> The solution that I thought of was MQC. I created an ACL to match eigrp >>>>> traffic. Then a policy map to "police cir 579000" (579K). This because >>> the >>>>> BW of the interface is 1544Ks (default) and this represents the 37.5% > of >>>> the >>>>> total BW of the FR interface. Then, I applied the policy map OUTBOUND > on >>>> the >>>>> interface in question. >>>>> >>>>> Since I am not breaking any rules or requirements, does this look like > a >>>>> valid solution?? >>>>> >>>>> THX >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
