RE: redundant virtual links posted 11/15/2006
- Subject: RE: redundant virtual links
- From: Adhu Ajit <adhu_ajit@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:34:04 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=VU65/kci9ChGnH/mQTiPSMB9BdBZOBJl7mR7sr9H+dQYhhZG4dRKoKKiQYgRLgSuzfDZKyex/gDmVKGqKHcQuPToEYNx1GG7lYUIN3qQgYy+MgFr/RKX+KRaFPXtAlRWBs3qpCg8pT/DeW1Uobf+gJHr1tQXVj+zsLuzmjdYx0k= ;
- In-reply-to: <C50F2BC544C87C47B5D91525710502140198C943@MAIL006.mail.lan>
Brian, does this fall under your definition of sub-optimal routing as well:
"RIP is redistributed into OSPF at 2 routers. Because of the redistribution a boundary (between RIP and OSPF domains) prefer the roundabout OSPF routes than the shorter RIP routes"
In the above case, even though the question did not explicitly ask us to address this scenario, should I or should I not fix this problem ? I
Thanks in advance.
Brian Dennis <bdennis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Only take suboptimal routing and redundancy into account if the lab asks
for it. Remember that the CCIE lab is not a design test or a test of
best practices for use in the field.
Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
From: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:27 PM
Subject: redundant virtual links
IE WB - RS - Lab 6 - Task 4.2
For redundancy purposes, why aren't we adding a virtual link from R3
to R1 over Area 13 ?
(The solution only adds VL over Area 23, 34 and 45)
Thanks in advance.
Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo -
Calculate new house payment
Subscription information may be found at:
Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $310,000 Mortgage for $999/mo - Calculate new house payment