Hello Carlos, Ah...Lab 8, one of the most complex redistribution scenarios you will come across :-) At quick glace it does not appear be needed in OSPF. Cat2 is tasked to be only in EIGRP 24, so it does like a mistake. Good eye, let us know if there is anything else you have questions on.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Carlos Valero <[email protected]>wrote: > In this task's solution, the Loopback of Cat2 is added to OSPF area 0: > > SW2 > > router osp 1 > network 148.48.102.102 0.0.0.0 area 0 > network 148.48.7.102 0.0.0.0 area 0 > > But there is no requirement to do so! > > Moreover, in Task 3.6 we are asked to add this Loopback to EIGRP 24! > > SW2 > > router eigrp 24 > no auto > net 148.48.102.102 0.0.0.0 > > I guess it doesn't hurt to add this Loopback to both processes, does it? > > But the main question is, why was it added to OSPF when it wasn't required > ??? > > Was it added by mistake? > > Or is it necessary for some reason that I do not see? > > Could you please explain? > > Thank you! > > > --- On *Sun, 6/14/09, Bryan Bartik <[email protected]>* wrote: > > > From: Bryan Bartik <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol3 Lab2 NSSA Options > To: "Meraz, Richard" <[email protected]> > Cc: "CCIE OSL" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 4:04 PM > > Richard, > > Nothing in the task mentions that it should be a totally NSSA, so I would > leave out the no-summary. I think it will be apparent if you needed to use > it. > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Meraz, Richard > <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> The task states: “*Area 27 should be configured as a stub area. Type 7 >> LSA should be permitted in Are 27.*” R2 is the ABR. >> >> >> >> Based on that requirement would both of the following be considered >> correct on R2 >> >> >> >> area 27 nssa no-summary >> >> Or >> >> area 27 nssa default-information-originate >> >> >> >> The PG had the latter as correct. Is the no-summary option invalid since >> the question says should be a stub area (instead of a totally not-so-stubby >> area), or would both options be acceptable? Paranoia is consuming me! >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Rich >> >> >> > > > > -- > Bryan Bartik > CCIE #23707 (R&S), CCNP > Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc. > URL: http://www.IPexpert.com > > > -- Bryan Bartik CCIE #23707 (R&S), CCNP Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc. URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
