Hey Rob, Thanks for the heads up on the typo. Also, I believe you are absolutely correct about the flaw in that task. Comments like this help a lot so that we can fix the issues in future releases. Thanks.
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > > > I notice a typo between the workbook and the PG as well as what I believe > may be a flaw with the question > > > > First the easy part. The workbook takes about the 100.100.100.0/24 and > 100.100.200.0/24 network, but then the PG has the 100.100.250.0/24 network > instead of the 100.100.200.0/24. > > > > Now for the flaw in the question unless I am overlooking something. The > questions states the 0/0 router should be injected to the switches when BOTH > networks are in the routing table. Via the “AND” in the wording of the > question. However, by using one access list linked to one match statement > it would act as an OR and as such only require 1 of the 2 networks to be in > the table for it to inject the route. > > > > If I am correct, you would need to put each network into it’s own access > list and then have two match statement in the route-map to may this work > correctly. Am I correct or am I missing some logic? > > > > Rob > -- Regards, Joe Astorino CCIE #24347 (R&S) Sr. Support Engineer – IPexpert, Inc. URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
