in
IEOC CCIE Forums

IEOC - INE's Online Community

Welcome to INE's Online Community - IEOC - a place for CCIE and CCENT candidates to connect, share, and learn. Our Online Community features CCIE forums and discussions for all tracks including Routing & Switching, Voice, Security, Service Provider, Wireless,, and Storage. Through these online communities you can discuss your questions with thousands of your peers, hundreds of CCIE's and INE's own team of world renowned CCIE instructors and authors, Brian Dennis - Quintuple CCIE #2210, Brian McGahan – Triple CCIE #8593, Petr Lapukhov - Quad CCIE #16379, and Mark Snow - Dual CCIE #14073.
Latest post 10-08-2014 7:07 PM by kylecbarnes. 4 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (5 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 10-04-2014 6:45 PM

    Full-scale lab#1 feedback/remarks

    Issues/questions I've found so far:

     

    1. Task 1.3--Solution shows us configuring point-to-multipoint on the link between 1 and 3.

    "Configure R1 and R2 to generate a /32 host routes for their link, and use a hello and dead interval that is the default value of a LAN interface."  This should have been for the link between 1 and 2 (gig1.12).

    2. Task 1.4 RIP

    "R4 and R6 should receive RIP updates using the link’s broadcast address."  Is it just me, or does this sound like we should be using v2-broadcast on the links TO R4 and R6?  When I did this portion thats how I approached it.  

    3. Task 1.6 Redistribution

    "Perform mutual redistribution between EIGRP and OSPF on R1 and R5." R5 is running RIP and EIGRP, not OSPF.

    4. Task 4.3 DMVPN Routing

    "Configure the DMVPN Network so that it is possible to configure summarization from the Hub towards the Spokes in the future, yet allow for direct spoke to spoke communications."  Would using summarization in this type of scenario be against the rules?

    5. Task 7.3 Query Bounaries

    "Ensure that R18 does not query spoke routers R16 and R17 when a route goes active during DUAL calculation."  Because of question 4, where I used a summary route, I didn't configure a stub.  Would this ding me?

     

     

     

    CCIE R&S #46535/CCDP/Security+

    My LinkedIn

    My Website

     

    • Post Points: 35
  • 10-06-2014 11:00 AM In reply to

    • plucena24
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-10-2012
    • Mountain View, CA
    • Elite
    • Points 16,865

    Re: Full-scale lab#1 feedback/remarks

    kylecbarnes:

    Issues/questions I've found so far:

     

    1. Task 1.3--Solution shows us configuring point-to-multipoint on the link between 1 and 3.

    "Configure R1 and R2 to generate a /32 host routes for their link, and use a hello and dead interval that is the default value of a LAN interface."  This should have been for the link between 1 and 2 (gig1.12).

    2. Task 1.4 RIP

    "R4 and R6 should receive RIP updates using the link’s broadcast address."  Is it just me, or does this sound like we should be using v2-broadcast on the links TO R4 and R6?  When I did this portion thats how I approached it.  

    3. Task 1.6 Redistribution

    "Perform mutual redistribution between EIGRP and OSPF on R1 and R5." R5 is running RIP and EIGRP, not OSPF.

    4. Task 4.3 DMVPN Routing

    "Configure the DMVPN Network so that it is possible to configure summarization from the Hub towards the Spokes in the future, yet allow for direct spoke to spoke communications."  Would using summarization in this type of scenario be against the rules?

    5. Task 7.3 Query Bounaries

    "Ensure that R18 does not query spoke routers R16 and R17 when a route goes active during DUAL calculation."  Because of question 4, where I used a summary route, I didn't configure a stub.  Would this ding me?

     

     

     

     

    1 - 3) - wording has been corrected

    4) - the task is not asking to summarize at the hub. It hinting at using Phase III DMVPN so that "it could be introduced in the future" yet allow direct spoke to spoke communication

    5)  task 4.3 is not asking for summarization. if you dont configure stubs on 7.3 then yes, this would "ding" you. 

    2xCCIE #38211 (RS/SP)

    • Post Points: 20
  • 10-06-2014 11:13 AM In reply to

    • JoeM
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-15-2012
    • Guadalajara, Mexico
    • Elite
    • Points 31,000

    Re: Full-scale lab#1 feedback/remarks

     

    FYI:   INE has started creating sub-forums for the individual labs.  This may seem trivial, but trust me, it will come in very handy to post to the specific forums -- after there are 20 labs.   People will be reading these posts for the next few years. Yes

     

    CCIE RSv5 Workbook Full Scale Labs
          >>  Full Scale Lab 1

     

    • Post Points: 20
  • 10-07-2014 12:57 PM In reply to

    Re: Full-scale lab#1 feedback/remarks

    I have moved this thread to the Full Scale Lab 1 subforum. Yes

    Matthew Hughes
    Data Center Manager
    mhughes@ine.com
    Http://www.ine.com

    • Post Points: 5
  • 10-08-2014 7:07 PM In reply to

    Re: Full-scale lab#1 feedback/remarks

    A good reminder that I need to get out my habits :)

    I hear phase 3...I automatically go for summarization..just because you can.  I need more of these to slap me around.

    CCIE R&S #46535/CCDP/Security+

    My LinkedIn

    My Website

     

    • Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (5 items)
IEOC CCIE Forums Internetwork Expert CCIE Training
About IEOC | Terms of Use | RSS | Privacy Policy
© 2010 Internetwork Expert, Inc. All Rights Reserved