It sounds like you accomplished it. I would watch out for wording that says you need connectivity if the RIP routes fail or something similar. Not only do you read the lab, but most people read it a few times! This is why it is key to have plenty of time left over to review. I can't tell you how many points I saved during the verification process, making sure not only that the task was correct but that I didn't violate any rules.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Michael Lipsey <[email protected]>wrote: > Now, OSPF is a link state protocol. So filtering routes from the route > table doesn’t filter them from the Link state database. > > > > It impacts the local router but doesn’t impact the overall domain until a > packet hits that local router – would that be correct? > > > > So the neighbors getting updates on that particular route that you’ve > filter from your local route table through a distribute list would still get > the LSA even if that local router wasn’t putting the route in its route > table. > > > > My example is this: I’m told in the practice lab to prefer the RIP routes > (‘prefer’ I’m learning should automatically mean ‘ADMINISTRATIVE DISTANCE’) > for some particular routes over the OSPF routes. > > > > Here is what I did: > > > > R5(config-router)#do sho run | s access-list > > ip access-list standard FilterOSPF > > deny 100.0.0.36 > > deny 100.0.0.37 > > deny 100.0.0.38 > > deny 100.0.0.35 > > deny 140.10.124.0 0.0.0.255 > > deny 140.10.134.0 0.0.0.255 > > deny 140.10.112.0 0.0.3.255 > > permit any > > > > This provided me with the end goal: > > > > R5(config-router)#do sho ip route rip > > 100.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 12 subnets > > R 100.0.0.36 [120/4] via 140.11.5.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 100.0.0.37 [120/2] via 140.11.5.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 100.0.0.38 [120/3] via 140.11.5.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 100.0.0.35 [120/1] via 140.11.5.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/0 > > 140.10.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 17 subnets, 4 masks > > R 140.10.134.0/24 [120/2 <http://140.10.134.0/24%0A%5B120/2>] via > 140.11.5.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 140.10.112.0/24 [120/1 <http://140.10.112.0/24%0A%5B120/1>] via > 140.11.5.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 140.10.113.0/24 [120/1 <http://140.10.113.0/24%0A%5B120/1>] via > 140.11.5.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 140.10.124.0/24 [120/3 <http://140.10.124.0/24%0A%5B120/3>] via > 140.11.5.1, 00:00:04, FastEthernet0/0 > > > > The proctor guide says that I should have changed the admin distance for > those route entries to something lower than OSPF (109). I think that’s > probably better but would my solution have gotten me the points for the > task? > > > > Ugh…test is next week. I’m learning – slowly that is VERY important to > actually read the lab. =-) > > > > -Mike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > -- Bryan Bartik CCIE #23707 (R&S), CCNP Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc. URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
