From: Dave Stoddard (dstoddard@thrupoint.net)
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 22:28:12 GMT-3
Guys, it does not work in ALL situations. I'm not going to waste further
time explaining the specific situations that it will NOT work in.
As far as answering my 'specific' question "Where exactly did you see these
directions? What was the specific wording?" Your answer doesn't fly in my
book. Groupstudy does not have directions of any kind concerning the CCIE
R/S lab, it's a discussion group. Directions can ONLY by given by Cisco.
My question can only be answered by.....
1> a Cisco URL
2> First hand experience from someone where they specifically asked this
question of a proctor & the proctor gave a specific answer, as we know they
do not.
3> Someone with first hand knowledge that the exam stated this
requirement/boundary in writing on the exam or on the white board in the
lab.
If anyone has an knowledge that was obtained directly from Cisco, please
share. Otherwise, lets end this thread.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell) [mailto:JPaglia@NA2.US.ML.com]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 5:38 PM
To: 'George Bekmezian'; dstoddard@thrupoint.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Cc: malcolm@lanbase.com
Subject: RE: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
I think all this rhetoric has convinced me that using secondary addresses
and the like is the way to go unless specified otherwise. No asking, the
result is immediate, no worries of the dreaded 'null0' ruining your day.
Besides, it works.
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Bekmezian [SMTP:george@bekmezian.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 8:22 PM
> To: dstoddard@thrupoint.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: malcolm@lanbase.com
> Subject: RE: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
>
> It's common knowledge. Read through the groupstudy archives.
>
> George
>
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: Dave Stoddard [mailto:dstoddard@thrupoint.net]
> |Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 5:06 PM
> |To: 'George Bekmezian'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> |Cc: malcolm@lanbase.com
> |Subject: RE: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
> |
> |
> |Where exactly did you see these directions? What was the
> |specific wording?
> |
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On
> |Behalf Of George Bekmezian
> |Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:12 PM
> |To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> |Cc: malcolm@lanbase.com
> |Subject: RE: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
> |
> |
> |Well, I recommend against it, since the directions
> |specifically state the null0 routes from summarization are not
> |allowed. You go ahead and take your chances though.
> |
> |
> |George
> |
> ||-----Original Message-----
> ||From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> ||Behalf Of Warner, Thomas S
> ||Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:45 PM
> ||To: 'Malcolm Price'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> ||Subject: RE: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
> ||
> ||
> ||Malcolm
> ||
> ||I have asked that question and the proctor said that it is OK
> ||to have the summaries to NULL0 in your RT that are generated
> ||by OSPF area range commands.
> ||
> ||
> ||Tom Warner
> ||Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
> ||Computing and Network Services
> ||email: mailto:thomas.s.warner@lmco.com
> ||
> ||
> ||
> ||-----Original Message-----
> ||From: Malcolm Price [mailto:malcolm@lanbase.com]
> ||Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 5:18 PM
> ||To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> ||Subject: OSPF into IGRP redistribution
> ||
> ||
> ||Guys,
> ||
> ||Has anyone asked the proctor if you are allowed to have a
> ||null0 route in your RT which has been generated by a ospf
> ||"area x range ..... " command ?
> ||
> ||Seems like the obvious solution to a very gray area :)
> ||
> ||Regards,
> ||Malcolm
> ||
> |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:44:05 GMT-3