What are fair assumptions about practice labs? posted 10/23/2006
- Subject: What are fair assumptions about practice labs?
- From: Ryan <ryan95842@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:40:32 -1000
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=O1n8CYoP3zJ2Zgu+1SAdhky5eGQPCPSGdHKa4ORyku7R08cXsgJFhH5iRojne/zgJcMGcpx7SUmFP8tXKRNqiZngE2QKtv/rA69d6Goqju++Eb54R2ojh32Myj8/XRSL3G7qwD5/mqUshZH3+YEzjHa4sQt4CNfUel1QcFc2AU4=
I just finished a very frustrating lab. It's not that it was terribly
difficult, it was, but that it's not entirely clear what to do. I'm speaking
specifically of the advertisement of loopback address's. In the beginning of
the lab, it says all networks must be reachable etc. Half way through, there
are VERY specific directions on how to put several loopbacks into the
routing table, but only about half of them though and no mention of the
others. Based on this "trend" and the lack of specific details, I followed
the directions as carefully as I could and didn't do anything I was not
asked to do. I get to the end and discover I was somehow supposed to
advertise the remaining loopbacks into the various protocols. No clue is
given that I was to do this, and into which protocol (between 2 -4 depending
on which router).
So my question is, at what point is is safe to make assumptions and just
start adding things in? How am I supposed to cope with missing information
in the practice labs?
Is the real lab this vague and ambiguous?
And at what point does "best practice" and "proper use" of a protocol go out
the window? On the same lab, there was an objective to configure NAT, but it
was not NAT like one would typically deploy with the conventional
understanding of NAT, instead it very specific aspect of NAT, but no mention
of that. The solution had all sorts of things with nothing to do with NAT...