Hi Antonio,
Regarding task 1.3 -
I agree with "no arp frame-relay". In my testing, I haven't needed to
use this configuration knob to avoid inverse-arp. I'll take a note to
lookup the exact usage of this command though.
You do need to configure IETF encapsulation because the task reads
that one day a non-Cisco router will be installed at the other end of
the link. I learned this the hard way. Back in the day, JUNOS did
not support Cisco's Frame Relay encapsulation but only IETF (and one
other, I believe). It was a real pain to take an outage on the Frame
Relay hub sites to change the encapsulation to IETF so that the new
Juniper spoke could communicate. A non-Cisco router will generally
require IETF to be configured on the IOS side. As info, I believe
JUNOS now supports Cisco's proprietary encapsulation. So, JUNOS would
be a bad example but I'm sure there are other router vendors out there
that only support IETF.
I will try to read through the rest of these after my practice lab
tonight. I need to get back from my break.
Good luck,
Bill
JNCIE-M #119, CCIE #7258
On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Antonio Soares wrote:
Hello group,
I'm now starting Section 1 and i have some comments i would like to
see discussed:
Task 1.2) In the 7200/ATM topology, R2 is not directly connected to
R5. R2 connects to R4 and R4 connects to R5. So if this true,
this task is not so trivial as it seems. I lost several hours to
make it work. Basically i configured CRB in R4 and IRB in R2 and
R5. With the release i was using, the bridge was not working. Then i
moved to another release and the bridge started passing
traffic. Then i found another problem with IP traffic from R1 to R5.
The solution was using PPP between R2 and R5 instead of HDLC.
Task 1.3) Why do we need "no arp frame-relay" ? I'm convinced that
this command has not effect at all. And we don't need to
configure IETF in R1. The routers are smart enough to communicate
even if the encapsulation is IEFT in one side an CISCO in the
other end.
Task 1.4) The default OAM timers are enough to make it faster than
ISIS.
Task 2.2) Is this minimal configuration ? My options were area-
password and domain-password. And instead of using L2-to-L1 route
leaking, why don't we simply send the default route from R1 and R5
to R2 ?
Task 3.3) Isn't the command "timers throttle spf" also valid for
iSPF ?
Thanks.
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S)
[email protected]
