I have seen this question from time to time (myself included) so you're not 
alone in your thinking here. The short answer is that the network should be 
private, and by advertising it in OSPF, any traffic sent to the network will 
end up having a NAT'd response, causing unwanted issues (or something like that)

In all honesty, I'm not sure if you would lose points here or not, will leave 
that for Tyson or Marko 

HTH

Thank you. 

Steve Di Bias
Network Engineer - Information Systems
Valley Health System - Las Vegas
Office - 702- 369-7594
Cell - 702-241-1801
[email protected] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rob Pool
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 4:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol 1 Lab17.5

The Task states the following:

Configure R4 to translate any IP Traffic from subnet 150.100.40.0/24 outbound 
to use it s0/0/0 interface. 150.100.41.0 should proceed unchanged.

The DSG shows the OSPF process being modified to no longer advertise the route 
of the natted network. I understand the thought process behind that, but it 
doesn't seem necesary to meet the requirements of the task.  I'm trying to 
stick to the idea that if it's not called for then I'm not going to make any 
additional changes. I was just wondering if maybe I was missing something. 



      
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com


UHS Confidentiality Notice:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is 
for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution of this information is prohibited.  If this was sent to you in 
error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the 
original message.
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Reply via email to