From: Omer Ansari (omer@ansari.com)
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 10:58:52 GMT-3
All,
sorry for only addressing the ppl who have attempted these Karl Solie labs
did this lab and questions regarding the solution proposed at:
http://ciscopress.com/content/images/1587200023/downloads/Skylabs-enchilada.pdf
http://ciscopress.com/content/images/1587200023/downloads/Skylabs-unnamed.pdf
the following questions came up: [i've left out the obvious mistakes in
the solution, and focussed on the ones i'm not sure on]
Enchilada questions
==================
1. DLSW (Sec XI, q1)
in Router1 solution, access-list 700 should have inverted (non-canonical
mac address as the destination is an ethernet vlan's MAC address)
2. IPX (Sec VIII q5)
ipx sap incremental is needed on R3, but why Router5's fa0/0?
Unnamed questions
=================
1. IGRP SecIV, q2
On Router2, the solution has conveniently created a class C network (not
given in requirements/specs) and used ip default-network against it to
create the default route.
would this be allowed in the lab? if not, is there another solution?
[ i used ip default-network 160.10.0.0 on this router and made it work]
(b) How do you get the /22 network on Vlan30 into IGRP via the /24 link?
the default route towards R4, would ensure connectivity, but the IGRP routes in R4 would
still be incomplete.
[i used tunnel for this, and it worked, but i struggled using tunnel for
the 192.190.100/22 network (as it is class C) which is being learnt from
BB1]
2. Sec X, q2
(a) why does router3 config have the local peer as border?
(b) is there a need for the ring-list for the dlsw peering with the
backbone? there is only 1 lan on R3 participating anyway.
3.Sec XI, q2
on router4, shouldn't this be access-expression out .... instead of "in" ?
regards,
Omer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:53 GMT-3