BSCI lab
Hi,
ON r1,r2,r3 running both rip and ospf, all networks are advertised.
172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 6 subnets
O 172.16.23.0 [1/2] via 172.16.12.2, 00:30:37, FastEthernet0/0
C 172.16.12.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
C 172.16.13.0 is directly connected, Serial1/0
C 172.16.1.0 is directly connected, Loopback1
O 172.16.2.0 [1/2] via 172.16.12.2, 00:30:37, FastEthernet0/0
O 172.16.3.0 [1/3] via 172.16.12.2, 00:30:37, FastEthernet0/0
O 192.168.102.0/24 [1/2] via 172.16.12.2, 00:30:37, FastEthernet0/0
O 192.168.103.0/24 [1/3] via 172.16.12.2, 00:30:37, FastEthernet0/0
C 192.168.101.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback101
r1#
r1 fa0/0 ->R2
172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 6 subnets
C 172.16.23.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
C 172.16.12.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0
O 172.16.13.0 [1/65] via 172.16.23.3, 00:30:58, FastEthernet0/0
[1/65] via 172.16.12.1, 00:30:58, FastEthernet1/0
O 172.16.1.0 [1/2] via 172.16.12.1, 00:30:58, FastEthernet1/0
C 172.16.2.0 is directly connected, Loopback2
O 172.16.3.0 [1/2] via 172.16.23.3, 00:30:58, FastEthernet0/0
C 192.168.102.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback102
O 192.168.103.0/24 [1/2] via 172.16.23.3, 00:30:58, FastEthernet0/0
O 192.168.101.0/24 [1/2] via 172.16.12.1, 00:30:58, FastEthernet1/0
R2 fa0/0 -> R3
Attempt this exercise based on what you know about OSPF, Dijkstra’s algorithm, and the distance command. Using only the distance command, write out the commands necessary to confuse the routers in this topology so that packets destined for 172.16.3.1 would continually bounce between R1 to R2?
This is a Q from bsci curriculum in lab_5_4.
I have tried to make AD on R1, R2 for rip and ospf =1 and 255 but i still can't create a loop between R1 and R2..
Any thoughts ?
Since it is possible to intentionally break routing in this way, what degree of caution should be exercised when manipulating administrative distances in a production network?
ON r1,r2,r3 running both rip and ospf, all networks are advertised.
172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 6 subnets
O 172.16.23.0 [1/2] via 172.16.12.2, 00:30:37, FastEthernet0/0
C 172.16.12.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
C 172.16.13.0 is directly connected, Serial1/0
C 172.16.1.0 is directly connected, Loopback1
O 172.16.2.0 [1/2] via 172.16.12.2, 00:30:37, FastEthernet0/0
O 172.16.3.0 [1/3] via 172.16.12.2, 00:30:37, FastEthernet0/0
O 192.168.102.0/24 [1/2] via 172.16.12.2, 00:30:37, FastEthernet0/0
O 192.168.103.0/24 [1/3] via 172.16.12.2, 00:30:37, FastEthernet0/0
C 192.168.101.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback101
r1#
r1 fa0/0 ->R2
172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 6 subnets
C 172.16.23.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
C 172.16.12.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0
O 172.16.13.0 [1/65] via 172.16.23.3, 00:30:58, FastEthernet0/0
[1/65] via 172.16.12.1, 00:30:58, FastEthernet1/0
O 172.16.1.0 [1/2] via 172.16.12.1, 00:30:58, FastEthernet1/0
C 172.16.2.0 is directly connected, Loopback2
O 172.16.3.0 [1/2] via 172.16.23.3, 00:30:58, FastEthernet0/0
C 192.168.102.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback102
O 192.168.103.0/24 [1/2] via 172.16.23.3, 00:30:58, FastEthernet0/0
O 192.168.101.0/24 [1/2] via 172.16.12.1, 00:30:58, FastEthernet1/0
R2 fa0/0 -> R3
Attempt this exercise based on what you know about OSPF, Dijkstra’s algorithm, and the distance command. Using only the distance command, write out the commands necessary to confuse the routers in this topology so that packets destined for 172.16.3.1 would continually bounce between R1 to R2?
This is a Q from bsci curriculum in lab_5_4.
I have tried to make AD on R1, R2 for rip and ospf =1 and 255 but i still can't create a loop between R1 and R2..
Any thoughts ?
Since it is possible to intentionally break routing in this way, what degree of caution should be exercised when manipulating administrative distances in a production network?
cisco rocks
Comments
-
mikej412
Member Posts: 10,086 ■■■■■■■■■■
This is a Q from bsci curriculum in lab_5_4.
It sounds just like the 5.6.4 challenge question discussed in the http://www.techexams.net/forums/ccnp/34063-lab-portfolio-help.html thread. I don't have the book handy so I can't check to make sure....:mike: Cisco Certifications -- Collect the Entire Set! -
cisco_trooper
Member Posts: 1,441 ■■■■□□□□□□
Since it is possible to intentionally break routing in this way, what degree of caution should be exercised when manipulating administrative distances in a production network?
Two words: Maintenance Window
Before you make such a change, you need to have a FIRM understanding of the resulting routing tables on all affected devices and networks before you do so. -
cisco_trooper
Member Posts: 1,441 ■■■■□□□□□□
It sounds just like the 5.6.4 challenge question discussed in the http://www.techexams.net/forums/ccnp/34063-lab-portfolio-help.html thread. I don't have the book handy so I can't check to make sure....
I really need to pick up that Lab Portfolio so I can take a look at these. Sounds like it is a good book.