Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move
kiddsupreme wrote: Like me preface by saying I'm using dynamips to lab it up. The first issue I had was with the IE3.0 cabling setup. I had to switch some things around to make it work. This time, I used the IE4.0 cabling setup to make sure I had it like the book had it. I am trying to get basic connectivity between R1 and R4. Between the two routers are two switches, SW1 & SW4.
mikej412 wrote: By basic connectivity you mean you can't ping between R1 and R4? Since you mentioned you're using dynamips and you have 2 switches and are showing switch output -- are you using the a couple of emulated routers with NM-16ESW modules as your switches? I haven't tried it with the Feb 18th Dynagen/Dynamips but there were lots of layer 2 issues with the previous Dynagen/Dynamips when I tried simple switching configurations using the NM-16ESW modules -- the "hardware simulation" seems to need some work still.
kiddsupreme wrote: What I find interesting is if both routers (Say R1 and R3) are connected directly to the same switch, I have no issue in pinging between the two routers. But put the two 'switches' in the middle, and it doesn't want to work.
kiddsupreme wrote: The static route took care of that.
mikej412 wrote: Hum.... but the odds of being allowed to use static routes on the lab exam are probably slim to none. The R1 to R4 ethernet (if there are no loopback -- update source -- multi-hop issues) screams out for a next-hop-self. Double check BGPs handling of the the next hop value for the the multiple-access broadcast ethernet network. Also check for the Frame-Relay between R2 & R5..... Did you do the no synchronization? If R1 and R2 are iBGP peers and you're doing redistribution from BGP to EIGRP.... synchronization should be okay.
Compare salaries for top cybersecurity certifications. Free download for TechExams community.