I don't see why your solution would break any requirements or rules. I think it is a valid alternative
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Jonathan Fernatt <[email protected]> wrote: > In the DSG for task 8.1 it says 64512 and 64513 should be part of a > confederation that makes up AS 200. For 8.3 in particular I just used the > local-as neighbor option to peer R1 and R2 instead setting up a > confederation. Would this still be considered meeting the requirements as > they're stated or should I have thought that through more? Or would that be > an 'ask the proctor' situation? > > Thanks! > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > -- Regards, Joe Astorino - CCIE #24347 Sr. Technical Instructor - IPexpert Mailto: [email protected] Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat eFax: +1.810.454.0130 IPexpert is a premier provider of Self-Study Workbooks, Video on Demand, Audio Tools, Online Hardware Rental and Classroom Training for the Cisco CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service Provider) certification(s) with training locations throughout the United States, Europe, South Asia and Australia. Be sure to visit our online communities at www.ipexpert.com/communities and our public website at www.ipexpert.com _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
