wrong into this lecture

Hi everyone into IEOC

image

 

MR/keith bogart have BIG Mistake into this lecture

into my review into this lecture, into video 83- Eigrp Implementing

he said that if we make :-

router eigrp as

variance 2

it will accept all these routes and put them into eigrp RT,and that`s FAULSE

because when we make variance , the variance output must be applies with all routes that`s meet the (feasibility condition first)before it inserted into local eigrp RT

and if we look at all these routes into this example, we`ll find that nothing of all these routes will meet (the FC)

so this is WRONG

THANKS

Comments

  • JoeMJoeM ✭✭✭

    I think that that the instructor's slide is only simplifying the explanation of the EIGRP VARIANCE command, and he is using very low numbers (100, 180, 240) that represent the total distance.

    But you are correct that if these numbers represented the Reported Distance from each number, they would need to pass the Feasibility Condition.

  • [Y]

  • Mohammed,

    While your understanding of the relationship of Variance to the EIGRP Feasibility Condition is correct, your interpretation of my video is incorrect. Nowhere in that portion of the video did I state that those values are "REPORTED DISTANCE" values.  I said (and wrote) that they are DISTANCE values.  Nowhere in that whiteboard do I show what the original Reported Distance (aka Advertised Distance) values were before the final Distance to each path was calculated, so there is no way for you to infer that my Variance example was incorrect.

    If you don't know the difference I would recommend doing a little more research.  And the next time you decide to use words in big, bold print about someone's work like "WRONG" and "FAULSE" I would highly suggest you contact the author first to ensure that your interpretation of the subject matter is actually correct.

  • Mohammed,

    While your understanding of the relationship of Variance to the EIGRP Feasibility Condition is correct, your interpretation of my video is incorrect. Nowhere in that portion of the video did I state that those values are "REPORTED DISTANCE" values.  I said (and wrote) that they are DISTANCE values.  Nowhere in that whiteboard do I show what the original Reported Distance (aka Advertised Distance) values were before the final Distance to each path was calculated, so there is no way for you to infer that my Variance example was incorrect.

    hi MY SIR

    i think you mention that`s into the lecture , but maybe the wrong from my side

    anyway, ok thanks for your reply

    i hope to take this flower from me [:)]

     

    image

  • JoeMJoeM ✭✭✭

     

  • wrong into this lecture?

    No title again `

Sign In or Register to comment.