From: Chuck Church (cchurch@MAGNACOM.com)
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 14:04:09 GMT-3
Mark,
When they switched to the 1 day lab, they started putting IP
addresses on all the necessary interfaces. If a loopback is necessary,
it'll already be there, and addressed. It's certainly a good idea to use a
loopback (i.e. always-up) interface for your reasons below. I don't know if
they actually tell you not to create any unnecessary interfaces, so I'd
practice it both ways. But once you're in the actual lab, don't second
guess anything - ASK THE PROCTOR!
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
Sr. Network Engineer
Magnacom Technologies
140 N. Rt. 303
Valley Cottage, NY 10989
845-267-4000
-----Original Message-----
From: Snow, Mark [mailto:Mark.Snow@newcome.com]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:39 AM
To: 'Chuck Church'; 'Olive, Darren'; Snow, Mark
Cc: 'Ccielab (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: Interfaces not specifically defined ...
That's good to know Chuck, and I hadn't heard that before! I'm going to test
that.
But a little different to what Darren proposed, is that I like to create a
Lo0 address on every router, and use the SAME Lo0 address for everything,
DLSW peers, BGP peers, OSPF router-id's, VPN set peers, etc ...
BUT, normally I add this IP address (on the loopback) to my local router's
IGP.
Any comments on this??
THIS is what I am wondering if Cisco will allow, because they will not ASK
me to add that IP range to the IGP, but will they PENALIZE me for doing
that???
Thanks,
Mark Snow
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Church [mailto:cchurch@MAGNACOM.com]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:15 AM
To: 'Olive, Darren'; 'Snow, Mark'
Cc: 'Ccielab (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: Interfaces not specifically defined ...
Guys,
Be careful about using the router-id command. On a bunch of early
12.0 T versions, I've seen it keep an ISDN line up. I'm not sure what
version they're running in the lab now, 12.1 something, but I be a little
afraid. The address scheme they give you in the lab makes sense, i.e.
you'll know what IP address belongs to what router just by looking at it.
So manually configuring the RID is probably unnecessary. Just my .02...
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
Sr. Network Engineer
Magnacom Technologies
140 N. Rt. 303
Valley Cottage, NY 10989
845-267-4000
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Olive, Darren
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 9:29 AM
To: 'Snow, Mark'
Cc: Ccielab (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Interfaces not specifically defined ...
Mark
I presume that you are anticipating that Cisco will not allow the use of the
router-id configuration command. This is more convenient as you can give r1
a router-id of 1.1.1.1 & r2 a router-id of 2.2.2.2 etc. What could be more
straightforward!
These router-id's are not valid IP addresses so will not affect anything
else in your configurations.
Darren
-----Original Message-----
From: Snow, Mark [mailto:Mark.Snow@newcome.com]
Sent: 16 September 2002 14:02
To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: Interfaces not specifically defined ...
Hopefully without violating and NDA, does anyone know if Cisco will make
marks against you if you introduce Loopback interfaces not SPECIFICALLY
defined in the objectives, into your IGP on that given router? Such as
introducing a new loopback for every router to use as an easy router-id for
whatever, bgp, ospf, dlsw ...??
J/W
> Mark Snow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:53 GMT-3