From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Tue Sep 28 2004 - 14:15:30 GMT-3
Actually this second route-map statement will not accomplish
anything, because the routes will not be dampened unless specific
dampening parameters are applied to them. This is not to say that the
routes will or will not be used or advertised, simply that they will not
be dampened regardless whether the second route-map sequence is there or
not.
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Matt
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 11:02 AM
> To: Edwards, Andrew M; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Ccie R&S lab 3 questions for the list....
>
> regarding the second permit statement in the dampening
> route-map...that statement is there to permit anything
> else not specified in the first statement. Without
> it, the rest will be denied.
>
> -matt
>
> --- "Edwards, Andrew M" <andrew.m.edwards@boeing.com>
> wrote:
>
> > For those of you familiar with the lab, I'd
> > appreciate any feedback.
> > Especially on bgp dampening because I think I really
> > need to get the
> > purpose of the second route-map permit sequence.
> > Re: requirement to not accept routes from any other
> > EIGRP routers on
> > VLAN 1 that may be added in the future
> > The author used a distribute list with the gateway
> > statement to allow
> > only R2 to provide updates to R3 on this VLAN.
> > I used a different method and wanted to run it by
> > the groupstudy.
> > I used the distance command such that there were two
> > entries in the
> > following order:
> > 1. distance 90 172.16.0.1 0.0.0.0
> > 2. distance 255 172.16.0.0 0.0.255.255
> >
> > With this configuration, R3 became adjacent to
> > another router (I used
> > the 3550 switch to test) on the VLAN, but DID NOT
> > take any routing
> > updates from it.
> > Would this have also met the requiremet from the
> > lab? Curious...
> > re: bgp dampening
> > I noticed that there were 2 route map sequences in
> > the solution.
> >
> > I am not sure what the purpose is to the final
> > route-map sequence
> > "permit 20". Can someone elaborate?
> >
> > Generally it was this in Lab 3:
> >
> > bgp dampen route-map dampen
> >
> > route-map dampen permit 10
> > match ip add 3
> > set damp x x x x
> >
> > route-map dampen permit 20
> >
> > access-list 3 permit ip w.x.y.z 0.0.0.15
> >
> > re: bgp rib failures
> > The author indicates that all the IGP routes should
> > be backdoored for
> > full points.
> >
> > If you only backdoor the peered eBGP neighbor
> > networks though the routes
> > will stop flapping and the other routes will just be
> > eBGP instead of
> > OSPF.
> >
> > Is it true, in a lab environment, that we should
> > ALWAYS set backdoor
> > routes for IGP learned routes over EGP routes?
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:50 GMT-3