The Long and Winding Road wrote:
> 
> The lab in question is one of the current crop of Cisco ASET
> labs.
> 
> My answer:
> access-list 120 deny   ip any host 255.255.255.255
> access-list 120 permit ip any host 224.0.0.9
> access-list 120 permit ip any any
> 
> The book answer:
> access-list 120 deny   ip any host 255.255.255.255
> access-list 120 permit ip any any
> 
> Yes the ISDN link is practically permantently up. Depending on
> the flow of
> hellos, it may drop for an instant, but it pops right back up.

The book answer does seem a little brain-damaged. ;-) Generally you wouldn't
want IDSN to stay up just for a routing protocol, from what I understand.

Could you change the hello interval? The default on ISDN BRI is 5 seconds.
You could make it a lot longer.

But then EIGRP would take a long time to converge. You could fix this with a
shorter hold-time.

Well, you're probably on to bigger and better things by now anyway!

Priscilla

> 
> In answer to someone else's point, no, snapshot routing is not
> an option
> with either ospf or eigrp. I am assuming that it is possible
> for bgp. not
> that I want to get off on a tangent right bow. :-O
> 
> --
> TANSTAAFL
> "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ""Nigel Taylor""  wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Folks,
> >            I'm sure this a pretty straight forward but as
> this ISDN
> > connection relates to the lab requirements as a complete
> scenario should
> > dictate how the requirements are interpreted.
> >
> > It seems strange that the ISDN link should stay up
> indefinitely.
> >
> > Another question here would be what "broadcast packets" are
> they referring
> > to that could bring up the line.
> >
> > Nigel
> > Dazed and confused  :->
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David j"
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 2:50 AM
> > Subject: RE: Sanity Check - ISDN and EIGRP [7:66016]
> >
> >
> > > See below:
> > >
> > > The Long and Winding Road wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm working on a practice lab problem.
> > > >
> > > > there are two domains - OSPF and EIGRP
> > > >
> > > > The two domains can only communicate via ISDN
> > > >
> > > > OSPF---R1-------ISDN------R2----EIGRP
> > > >
> > > > R1 is where redistribution takes place. The ISDN link is
> in the
> > > > EIGRP
> > > > domain.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty much I've concluded that the only way this works
> is that
> > > > here have to
> > > > be static default routes on R1 and R2 pointing to
> eachother.
> > > > The only other
> > > > way I can see this working is for the ISDN link to be
> > > > permanently up.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, the lab instructions are not very clear on
> this
> > > > point. The
> > > > only relevant instructions are:
> > > >
> > > > 1) no broadcast packets should initiate a DDR session.
> > > > Multicast packets
> > > > should be able to traverse the ISDN link.
> > > >
> > > > 2) use an access-list 120 for any filters you may need
> for DDR
> > > >
> > > > 3) only IP traffic will need to traverse the link
> > > >
> > > > That multicast instruction is interesting. Am I on the
> right
> > > > track thinking
> > > > the test here is to let the link stay up forever by
> defining
> > > > the EIGRP
> > > > hellos as "interesting" ?? thoughts?
> > >
> > > I think so, in fact if the link were used as backup of a
> serial link it
> > > would be logical that eigrp multicast packets bring it up
> when the
> serial
> > > link is down. We have our backups defined more or less in
> that way ( on
> a
> > > eigrp - eigrp domain, but this is not so important here).
> We have
> defined
> > as
> > > interesting traffic any ip packet, but I think you could
> fulfill all
> > > requirements of this lab doing some "acl engineering",
> perhaps denying
> > > explicitly broadcast packets at the beginning of the acl.
> 
> 




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66046&t=66016
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to