Jump to content

cdipman

Members
  • Content Count

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About cdipman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. cdipman

    Passed today

    What do you mean silightly modified? Did u see something new? please update and give us your feedback.
  2. Can you explain how section 25 is the reference to know if we have to leave AS as it or Replace to 65001 on R50/51/52? Because i understand that section 2.5 is telling us how to aggregate on R15/16 and if we need to use allowas-in in remote sites and DC OR if we need to use as-override in the Core. Please explain the relation of that section 2.5 with requirement of AS65006 in Jacobs. Thanks.
  3. Anyone has any comment about why we are not getting the right ouput from R30 while we get it right on the rest of HQ nodes?
  4. yeah I got the same issue. However, R31, SW300 and SW301 get the right output. only R30 is behaving like that. if i advertise e0/2 interface into bgp on sw100, it would show that interface ip as info source as well. Not what it could be. maybe an it's a bug or something. Not sure if on real exam it's the case.
  5. Need comment on the approach to manage routing loos from edge devices in H2 compared to H2+. I notice they use metric for redistribution on R15/16 and R18/57 for H2. But they only use metric for redistribution on R18 - Why do we do redistribution with metrics on R15/16 for H2? ( OSPF <-----> BGP ) - Why do we do normal redistribution with no metrics on R15/16 for H2+? ( OSPF <-----> BGP ) please give any feedback.
  6. How do i decide to use either the lo1 or the e0/2 for pim discovery? SW100: access-list 1 permit 239.250.0.0 0.0.255.255 ip pim send-rp-ann Lo1 scope 255 group-list 1 ip pim send-rp-discovery Lo1(or e0/2) scope 255 I need to know what will tell to use which of which. How do i know? What we don't need to do the same in HQ? Please confirm and comment. Thanks.
  7. Make sense but i have not seen feedback of someone doing so in the exam yet. Do you know someone who did like that in exam and passed?
  8. Do we have these additional statements in H2+ as below? - Required protocols should be allowed except for those who has ttl of 0 and 1. - Specifically stated not to use a deny statement. Spoto and C4C use the deny sequences in the solutions for both labs.
  9. Section 4.1 H2/H2+ Do we have this additional statements in H2+ as below? Required protocols should be allowed except for those who has ttl of 0 and 1. Specifically stated not to use a deny statement. What is the solution for this section in both Labs?
  10. Yes, SoO is a good candidate for that. In R15/16, this type of redistribution is done only for H2 and not for H2+ in the solutions. In H2+, they do normal redistribution back and fother on R15/16. and on R18 they do metric-type 1 to ospf from bgp. Any reason why they don't use same method for both H2/H2+ on R15/16? The only difference as far as i know, in H2, we aggregate 10.2.0.0/16 and in H2+, we aggregate 10.0.0.0/16. which is right based on the req from section 2.4 Regards.
  11. cdipman

    H2+ section 2.8

    So maybe it's cisco fooling on us or we need to find some other way to advertise those specifics via backdoor. because the aggr summary-only will send only that summary route and nothing else. the unsuppress-map is used to make it possible to advertise the components we want to send over, which also requires a route-map to do the magic. So, it's not clear if we are right or wrong, or if cisco is right with the req or wrong.
  12. cdipman

    H2+ section 2.8

    Unsuppress-map is calling a route-map. do you agree with that? that's where i have doubts
  13. No, it's not. I am also following that thread, but it's not related to the routing issues that can happen between the redundant gateways per sites This is what i mean from my post. Let's consider DC. there is mutual redistribution on R15/16 between ospf and bgp. Routes gets redistributed from ospf to bgp on R15 to mpls, once in the core mpls, these routes can possibly be redistributed back to ospf from bgp by R16. The inverse is also true from bgp to ospf by one gateway let's say R15 and redistributed back to bgp by other gateway R16. I think in this req, cisco is asking to ensure that one gateway is not redistributing back the routes to where it came from. The solution discussed in that thread is only about routes coming from one site to other sites and prevent from coming back to origin site. But not related to the redundant gateway routers doing redistributions like R15/16 R55/56 please give any comment.
×
×
  • Create New...