Gday Bryan, Thanks for the feedback.
Cheers, Con. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Bryan Bartik<[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Con, > > I just completed this lab. I agree with your auto-cost findings. I just did > 1000 since it worked. There was no requirement for it be as low as possible. > > For 2.2, you are right. ISIS still allows a router to become DIS with a > priority of 0. > > I agree with your 8.2 solution, I used qos-group. If we needed to prioritize > this traffic throughout the network, than EXP would be needed. > > For my solution to 6.5 I used "bgp default local-preference" on R5 and R2. > This set the values appropriately and I don't see any issues. > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Con Spathas <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Gday Group, >> >> Well I spent the morning going through the second lab in Vol2. Not too >> bad - although I admit not as challenging as Lab1. >> >> ################### >> A couple of questions. Granted there are usually more than 1 way to do >> things - although I'd like feedback on whether I "broke" the >> requirements. >> >> 1. Task 1.4 >> One of the requirements was the configure a P2P connection between R3 >> and R7 (Frame-Relay) but not use sub-interfaces. >> I took this to mean a PPP Virtual-Template - but the PG shows a simple >> frame-map statement under the physical interface. I don't think I >> broke any further requirements. Thoughts? >> >> 2. Task 2.4 >> 2.4 in the PG sets the reference cost to 155 but even this won't be >> enough to prefer ATM over F0/0 from what I could see. >> >> Here's the reference bandwidth at 155: >> 1.2.3.4/24 is the F0/0 interface >> 200.6.78.7/24 is the ATM1/0.1 interface >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> R6#sh int f0/0 | inc Internet|BW >> Internet address is 1.2.3.4/24 >> MTU 1500 bytes, BW 100000 Kbit/sec, DLY 100 usec, >> R6# >> R6#sh int a1/0.1 | inc Internet|BW >> Internet address is 200.6.78.6/24 >> MTU 4470 bytes, BW 155520 Kbit/sec, DLY 80 usec, >> R6# >> R6#sh ip ospf inter | inc Add|Cost >> Internet Address 200.200.200.6/32, Area 0 >> Process ID 1, Router ID 200.200.200.6, Network Type LOOPBACK, Cost: 1 >> Internet Address 1.2.3.4/24, Area 0 >> Process ID 1, Router ID 200.200.200.6, Network Type BROADCAST, Cost: 1 >> Internet Address 200.6.78.6/24, Area 0 >> Process ID 1, Router ID 200.200.200.6, Network Type BROADCAST, Cost: 1 >> R6# >> R6#sh run | inc router ospf |reference >> router ospf 1 >> auto-cost reference-bandwidth 155 >> R6# >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Here's the reference bandwidth at 200 which is the smallest I could >> find to make it >> prefer ATM over FastEthernet: >> >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> R6#sh ip ospf inter | inc Add|Cost >> Internet Address 200.200.200.6/32, Area 0 >> Process ID 1, Router ID 200.200.200.6, Network Type LOOPBACK, Cost: 1 >> Internet Address 1.2.3.4/24, Area 0 >> Process ID 1, Router ID 200.200.200.6, Network Type BROADCAST, Cost: 2 >> Internet Address 200.6.78.6/24, Area 0 >> Process ID 1, Router ID 200.200.200.6, Network Type BROADCAST, Cost: 1 >> R6# >> R6#sh run | inc router ospf |reference >> router ospf 1 >> auto-cost reference-bandwidth 200 >> R6# >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> So my solution used reference bandwidth of 200 which I think satisfies >> the requirement given the language of the task. >> >> 3. Task 8.2 >> The solution is using ACL to match ICMP and then matching the ACL in >> class-map. I just used nbar and match protocol ICMP instead. I figure >> this is fine. >> The solution also imposed mpls EXP 3 on the policy inbound from the >> VPN routers. I set a qos-group and then matched this going into the SP >> cloud and applied LLQ that way. Again I figure this is okay as it >> achieves the task. >> >> ######################### >> A couple of observations. >> 1. Task 2.2 >> The task states that R2 and R5 should "never" become DIS, however >> setting their priority will not stop this - just make it less likely! >> Was this intended to test the candidates knowledge of ISIS to not go >> looking for something that's not there? >> >> 2. Task 2.4 >> The task states that R6 should never be the DR and ensure R8 is the >> BDR. The PG changes R6 priority to 0 and R8 to priority 2. I set R7 to >> 255 and R8 to 254. >> The PG output shows R7 as the DR but with a priority of 1 - so on a >> reload - i think the task would break as it's shown in the PG and >> final-configs. >> >> 3. Task 6.8 - This isn't so much about the task now - but my >> understanding. >> In earlier tasks we configured some inbound route-map to set >> local-pref on R2, R5 and I also used weight on R2 and R6 to satisfy >> requirements. >> I've read about this command (match mpls-label) >> >> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/mpls/command/reference/mp_m1.html#wp1028293 >> I thought I would need it during these tasks but it seems if we're >> only setting weights/local-pref to all prefixes being received on >> inbound route-map, it's not needed. >> I suspect if we match a specifix prefix using a route-map to set the >> preference, then this command would be required inbound. I'll play >> with this some more - but any comments welcome. >> >> That's about it. >> >> Cheers, >> Con. >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >> visit www.ipexpert.com > > > > -- > Bryan Bartik > CCIE #23707 (R&S), CCNP > Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc. > URL: http://www.IPexpert.com > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
