Again we are in the same boat. The same was question was raised by me in this forum sometime back.. Let's do some analysis of Yusuf's lab
CPPr is Control Plane Policing CoPP is Control protection CoPP is an extension of CPPr that has host, transit and CEF-exception sub-interfaces. The lab's section 6.0 is* Implement Control and Management Control Plane.*In that section, you can see the following sub-sections - Control Plane Protection - Management Plane Protection - Storm Control Protection - Cisco IOS and configuration Protection - Router CPU protection - Secure Device access protection Everything has protection keyword at the end. So don't confuse the sub-section name Control Plane Protection with the Cisco's feature CoPP (Control plane protection). What matters is keywords and requirements of the task? Lab 1, section 6.1 asks for blocking RFC 1918. Well this can done by both CoPP and CPPr. But the task as the keyword *Configure CoPP protection* Lab 2, section 6.1 asks for closed-ports handling which can be done only by CoPP (Control plane protection). Also it has been mentioned configure *control plane protection using CoPP* If you don't have CoPP mentioned in the task, then we can look for the task requirements. If the task requirement can be done both in CPPr and CoPP, then it's a proctor question. CPPr support both input and output service policy. If the task asking for output handling, then it should be configured in CPPr CoPP supports only input service policy. CoPP features are port filter, queue threshold and management interfaces. If the task any of the three then it should be configured in CoPP With regards Kings On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Eugene Pefti <[email protected]>wrote: > I am currently confused by what you guys said and what Yusuf’s lab says. > It is about CoPP which for me stands Control Plane Protection. And there’s a > well-defined set of actions that could be implemented when we speak about > CoPP. As far as I understand whenever we hear CoPP we deal with the > control-plane subinterfaces. No words in Yusuf’s tasks imply that we have to > apply the policy-map to the host sub-interface of the control-plane. But the > task itself reads confusing as it says “Question 6.1: Configure Control > Plane protection” and then Configure Control Plane Policing (CoPP) and again > “Configure CoPP Protection”. I’m honestly lost… > > > > So, as far as I understand Cisco guide when we have to do anything about > Control Plane Policing we operate with an aggregate control plane services. > And this is what Yusuf showed in his Q6.1 in lab 1. But he mixed > “Protection” and “Policing”. Don’t know if it was deliberate. I’d ask > proctor a question by what is meant in a task. Would it be appropriate to > clarify it and not showing our incompetence in such a case? > > > > And we are looking at the control-plane extensions of the policing then it > should be at least worded properly in order not to confuse. > > And Vybhav is right, wording of the task is the “key” and “critical” > component. > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Vybhav > Ramachandran > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 10, 2010 10:49 PM > *To:* Mark Senteza > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_Security] Yusuf Lab 1: Control Plane Protection > > > > Hello Mark, > > > > I would do the same as you. I would place the policy-map under the "host" > subinterface . Plus, i would also look at the title of the question. If it > says Control Plane Protection, then i would do as you've done. If it says > Policing, then i would do as Yusuf did. > > > > I think that should be ok . We're paying $1400, the least they can do is go > through our solution to see if it's correct or not ;) > > > > Cheers, > TacACK > > > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
