Typo in restriction in ticket 2?

Hello,

I'm just looking through the tasks in the full scale troubleshooting lab 3 and in ticket 2 it states:

 

Restrictions:

*Do modify the priority of any protocol to a value lower than the default.

 

Should that be "Do NOT modify" or is it really the intention to modify the priority?  Seems weird to word a 'Do' as a restriction? 

 

Thanks

Comments

  • Typo indeed. Should be "do NOT modify". They don't want you to modify the HSRP priorities is what they mean, in order to resolve the ticket. Rather, you must fix the IP SLA/tracking issue that affects the HSRP priority on R20 and keeps it from becoming HSRP Active.

  • SPOILER ALERT!!!!

     

    I believe the question is correct. Let's look at the config and the aim is to get HSRP to be primary on R20:

    R19

    interface GigabitEthernet1.192

     standby 192 priority 150

     

    R20

    interface GigabitEthernet1.192

     standby 192 priority 120

     standby 192 track 192 decrement 50

     

    With IP SLA down, the priority will be 70. As such, even if you fix the IP SLA issue, your priority will never be higher than R19. This means you need to change the value of R19 to somewhere between 100 to 119. You cannot go below 100 because 100 is the default (hence the restriction).

  • I haven't seen the solution yet but I also considered not going under 100 so I changed from 150 to 160 in R20, after fixing the IP SLA. 

    Anyway, if we don't fix the IP SLA and configure priority on R20 higher than 200, that should would work too, so the restriction remains unclear for me. Does anybody agree?

  • An old post I know but I agree.  It appears they don't want you to modify the priority low enough on R19 so R20 can win once the IP SLA is fixed.

    You need to either raise the priority on R20 to past 200 or fix both the IP SLA and raise it about 170.

    The first time I did this I hit the quickest and raised it to 250.

    HTH.

  • I also raised R20 to 201 for the win... didnt loose time on SLA tshooting. Seems that the restrictions should be different to force us to fix SLA unrechability

    Best regards

Sign In or Register to comment.