RE: IEWB question posted 04/07/2008
- Subject: RE: IEWB question
- From: "Peter" <engpeter@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 23:11:39 +0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:references:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; bh=S+4sH75nDt5jXFpC3M7z5yK7uJmPbL6cJ7Ju3Hd6KJU=; b=ITwyFDacHM0LC0QkUYHgT60rh5YJkmKJtfidIA4ccWUhPZeJsEg7N/Q7HVfqzgqfXaVY0whYoNbaQ8fzWrd5FdwXsBlaZ0W4RfQZz9SI2V90e170z3TcPLoHbI5vDAwW1aFronSVUwjg47Ml9dfUgpj8cADPb7mtZY6Pj4/SB5c=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:references:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=fKKa7VfXX79lSM2pkuAPJRVKGgDLa0qxbsCF0VDg8zjT7QYvn7R+C1YJQWWtucVfJWVEwg5aEbIrw0X427wI6SmsJnLnAqLiyOZUGCBFqMPAJytqGgFN8N3XJxGTJuK31TBVeGT11SgLZo07x+Tnsa1F9lic4Df7YfUSXNGb7ac=
- Thread-index: AciY4lo5OmfGPBEKSG6PfwRfMW2soQAAIIBQ
I think it won't loop, as the EIGRP metric will keep adding up and so it
will never be in the routing
Table of the other router.
I think the scenario could be valid if it was an OSPF type-2 route where
internal metric are not counted all the way.
Please correct it if I'm wrong.
From: Peter [mailto:engpeter@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 23:06
To: 'Cisco certification'
Subject: IEWB question
In one of IEWB labs, I had a comment on the solution, I'm not sure if that
will unnecessarily complicate things.
I'm not sure if I can ask direct questions about the InternetworkExpert
workbook here, but I'll
Try to be generic to reserve these people's efforts and rights :-).
So basically, there was a redistribution btw OSPF & EIGRP.
One of the other routers were redistributing RIP into EIGRP earlier.
After the OSFP & EIGRP redistribution, I found in the solution that no
Was called in the redistribution for (deny and set tags).
So these external routes coming from EIGRP 170 will be redistributed nto
OSPF with 110 and
Will then start to loop. Shouldn't we apply a route-map in this case?