Another OSPF Challange!

Answer sent.

yuriz43

That is just silly. In what situation would you need to make this work, without fixing the obvious mistake?

However setting the ospf network type to point-to-point should make the adjacencies form.

i agree, I'm pretty much done with these when there's going to be a lot of insane and impractical restrictions in place, it stops being education at that point, and starts being stupid router tricks.

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

i agree, I'm pretty much done with these when there's going to be a lot of insane and impractical restrictions in place, it stops being education at that point, and starts being stupid router tricks.

Seriously?

Heaven forbid you use your brain, or get a deeper understanding of something. That's just crazy.

Why bother posting to say you're not going to post? Just to complain?

Edit: You guys realize that this is what the lab is like (judging from the training materials, I haven't taken it yet

), right? They don't ask you real world questions and make sure you can answer them with best practices. They want to ensure that you have a very deep understanding of the technologies. So they say "do this, but don't use this or this to accomplish it". You need to prove that you know the other ways to accomplish something, which indicated a good understanding.

If you have no interest in the CCIE then I somewhat understand not wanting to join in on these and really put your brain to the test, but if you are going for the IE, I think these could be very beneficial.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming: CCIE pursuit threads...

yuriz43 wrote: »

That is just silly. In what situation would you need to make this work, without fixing the obvious mistake?

However setting the ospf network type to point-to-point should make the adjacencies form.

Hopefully none. But it does demonstrate basics of ospf (mask not used with p2p) and you still took the time and interest in this to answer it.

networker050184

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

i agree, I'm pretty much done with these when there's going to be a lot of insane and impractical restrictions in place, it stops being education at that point, and starts being stupid router tricks.

If you're scared just say you're scared

APA

networker050184 wrote: »

If you're scared just say you're scared

bahaha

yuriz43

ColbyG wrote: »

Edit: You guys realize that this is what the lab is like (judging from the training materials, I haven't taken it yet ), right? They don't ask you real world questions and make sure you can answer them with best practices. They want to ensure that you have a very deep understanding of the technologies. So they say "do this, but don't use this or this to accomplish it". You need to prove that you know the other ways to accomplish something, which indicated a good understanding.

If you have no interest in the CCIE then I somewhat understand not wanting to join in on these and really put your brain to the test, but if you are going for the IE, I think these could be very beneficial.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming: CCIE pursuit threads...

Isn't the CCIE Lab supposed to test your real world & fundamental knowledge of the technology? We liked your first Quick Challenge BGP question because it was a little more realistic and made you think about the different protocol attributes, it was not simply a 'clever trick/gotcha' type of thing.

Turgon

The question is fine. Vendor workbooks are loaded with things like this and with good reason. It's not about stupid router tricks. It's about forcing you to think about what solution will meet the requirement while not violating the constraints of the question.

There are lots of things lurking in the actual lab exam that will give you pain. It's not simply an exercise in building a complicated infrastructure utilising the rote configuration of various topics.

There will be constraints there that you have to work with and around. The idea is it tests if the candidate understands not only the various options to do something, but the selection of the appropriate configuration that is either not affected by the constraint due to its inherent operation or can take advantage of the constraint to achieve the objective.

Understanding why a 007 configuration overcomes the constraint is the main objective!

yuriz43 wrote: »

Isn't the CCIE Lab supposed to test your real world & fundamental knowledge of the technology? We liked your first Quick Challenge BGP question because it was a little more realistic and made you think about the different protocol attributes, it was not simply a 'clever trick/gotcha' type of thing.

Do you think my last one was a gotcha/trick? I can see how you could say that about this one since it is just kind of a random thing you know or you don't, there isn't a lot of thinking involved. My HSRP answer wasn't really a trick, it just required understanding HSRP and thinking outside the box. The NAT solution was the same. The alias solution could have been sort of tricky, but who knows.

I try to keep mine more about understanding than knowledge of every minute detail. I feel like that's inline with the lab.

networker050184 wrote: »

If you're scared just say you're scared

I is scared.

Will you make the bad man go away, and hold me until I can fall sleep? Please?

Have we seriously degenerated to the point where an opinion can't be offered without someone getting their feelings hurt? If that's the case, cool, I'll step off.

ColbyG wrote: »

Do you think my last one was a gotcha/trick? I can see how you could say that about this one since it is just kind of a random thing you know or you don't, there isn't a lot of thinking involved.

Given the way it was presented, I do. When all you do is put up two routers with a single link between them and say 'make one side answer for another IP, but you can't use a secondary address', using redundancy technology instead of a secondary IP is not even remotely realistic, and that chucks it into the realm of 'stupid router tricks' (which does not mean I'm calling you stupid, btw, it's an allusion to the Letterman bit of stupid pet tricks).

Presentation and context count.

mikej412

ColbyG wrote: »

You guys realize that this is what the lab is like (judging from the training materials

While the Lab exam isn't a "Best Practice Exam," they don't use stupid router tricks. They may take away the obvious solutions and force you to use "Plan C" -- but the solution they are looking for is still reasonably mainstream (or another technology listed in the blueprint).

Don't confuse the 3rd party training materials with the Lab. People have been fired for implementing "CCIE Lab Workbook Solutions" in real life.

mikej412 wrote: »

People have been fired for implementing "CCIE Lab Workbook Solutions" in real life.

Haha, this I believe.

I guess my thought is that deeply exploring technologies can't be a bad thing. I see these little challenges as a way to get my brain going and really push my understanding of the technology. These things are fun for me and I thought others would enjoy them too, and it seems like many people do. To each his own.

As for a stupid router trick, someone gave me this one today:

R1(s0/0)

(s0/0)R2

R1's IP is 192.168.1.1/24

R2's IP is 10.1.1.1/24

Make them ping each other. Bring up OSPF on the link. Do not add or change IPs to any interfaces.

To me, that one is a bit out there, and obviously not something anyone should ever come across in the real world or on an exam. But I still think it's fun to figure out creative ways to solve things.

Well, part of education is knowing when *not* to do something, I just feel there needs to be some distinguishing between 'good' answers and 'bad' answers, and for the questions that have hefty restrictions on them, there should be some justification for why those restrictions exist. Not fixing a glaring configuration error isn't something I feel should be encouraged under any circumstances. This is why it's hard to write good exam questions.

There's also the fact that TE does pretty well in the Google page rankings, so I feel it's incumbent upon us to provide a thorough explanation, lest the unwary wander into the dragon's maw and get chomped as a result of it.

Turgon

mikej412 wrote: »

Don't confuse the 3rd party training materials with the Lab. People have been fired for implementing "CCIE Lab Workbook Solutions" in real life.

Very true. Just because you may know a hack or even understand how to do something, that doesn't necessarily mean you should do it on a live platform. Changes have impacts in ways that are not only technical.

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Well, part of education is knowing when *not* to do something, I just feel there needs to be some distinguishing between 'good' answers and 'bad' answers, and for the questions that have hefty restrictions on them, there should be some justification for why those restrictions exist. Not fixing a glaring configuration error isn't something I feel should be encouraged under any circumstances. This is why it's hard to write good exam questions.

There's also the fact that TE does pretty well in the Google page rankings, so I feel it's incumbent upon us to provide a thorough explanation, lest the unwary wander into the dragon's maw and get chomped as a result of it.

If you know the technology in and out, then you have no problems applying it in real or imaginary situations.
This is like chess openings. Everyone can memorize and learn best openings, but to really understand each move behind pieces is not the same thing. Even a small divination - a single move different then its suppose to be from an opponent can make you uncomfortable because you don't understand the opening, you just memorized it.

Small exercises like these are meant to force you to think outside of box. Nobody ever mentioned they are best practices. If you don't want to try them because you feel you will never see them in real life, then that's up to you. However don't go around saying they are silly or that they stupid router tricks , because that is just being ignorant. 'Stupid trick' is only as 'stupid' as the solver trying to solve it.

Colby,

R1(s0/0)

(s0/0)R2

R1's IP is 192.168.1.1/24

R2's IP is 10.1.1.1/24

Make them ping each other. Bring up OSPF on the link. Do not add or change IPs to any interfaces.

You can ping, but you can't make OSPF work on that without changing IP. If you know otherwise let me know.

acidsatyr wrote: »

Colby,

R1(s0/0)
(s0/0)R2

R1's IP is 192.168.1.1/24

R2's IP is 10.1.1.1/24

Make them ping each other. Bring up OSPF on the link. Do not add or change IPs to any interfaces.

You can ping, but you can't make OSPF work on that without changing IP. If you know otherwise let me know.

You can bring up OSPF.

ColbyG wrote: »

You can bring up OSPF.

Unless you create something like tunnel and then run ospf on that, i don't know how.
PM me ?

NVM! Colby is right, there is solution, and has nothing to do with ospf.

Good thinking
BTW, i said without changing IP... hint hint!

mikej412

ColbyG wrote: »

As for a stupid router trick, someone gave me this one today:

If it's actually testing your knowledge of a technology -- rather than a trivial factoid -- it's not a stupid router trick.

A scenario like this would come up in the old dialup modem days when you connected two different networks with PPP. And it's still relevent if you use IP unnumberd interfaces and/or various tunnel interfaces. It was covered in the CCNP in the old BCRAN days & should still be mentioned somewhere in Doyle if you do your CCIE reading.

Telling someone to configure ospf in area x without using the area x command anywhere in your configuration is probably a stupid router trick, even though it is trivial. If you see it in a workbook lab it's there as a "wakeup call" -- you can't use "area x" doesn't mean you can't use the area command. The OSPF area is a 32 bit number and you can use the dotted decimal format that was mentioned in the CCNA (and again in the CCNP). A properly entered area a.b.c.d command can create the same OSPF area the same as area x command -- and it won't show up when you verify with the show run | inc area x command.

Turgon

mikej412 wrote: »

If it's actually testing your knowledge of a technology -- rather than a trivial factoid -- it's not a stupid router trick.

A scenario like this would come up in the old dialup modem days when you connected two different networks with PPP. And it's still relevent if you use IP unnumberd interfaces and/or various tunnel interfaces. It was covered in the CCNP in the old BCRAN days & should still be mentioned somewhere in Doyle if you do your CCIE reading.

Telling someone to configure ospf in area x without using the area x command anywhere in your configuration is probably a stupid router trick, even though it is trivial. If you see it in a workbook lab it's there as a "wakeup call" -- you can't use "area x" doesn't mean you can't use the area command. The OSPF area is a 32 bit number and you can use the dotted decimal format that was mentioned in the CCNA (and again in the CCNP). A properly entered area a.b.c.d command can create the same OSPF area the same as area x command -- and it won't show up when you verify with the show run | inc area x command.

Very true about the dial stuff. I have a post about this very thing about dialers somewhere on the forum.

For those of you confronting similar legacy situations I do feel for you. With the amount of stuff that has been taken off the cert tracks these days you have no reference points and will suffer. ISDN and dial going was a mistake. If you get this in the field then which ever church you go to, kneel

Regarding OSPF area this has jogged my memory reading a factoid that many gloss over (there are so many when one considers the guts of protocol mechanics) probably three years or more ago. If I recall I *think* you can even do it in hex. The point is well taken though. There is a tendency to fall into config habits without really understanding this sort of minutia. While its probably only for a few points its the kind of thing you could be tested on.

acidsatyr wrote: »

Small exercises like these are meant to force you to think outside of box. Nobody ever mentioned they are best practices. If you don't want to try them because you feel you will never see them in real life, then that's up to you. However don't go around saying they are silly or that they stupid router tricks , because that is just being ignorant.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'd ask you to remember that this is the CCIE forum, not a generalized network forum, and Mike has already pointed out that the CCIE doesn't do stupid router tricks. I understand you feel that these are clever and worthwhile. I see it as an egotistical form of masturbation.

You can call me whatever you like, but I'm going to call the spade a spade.

Let me point out that more than one person on this forum doesn't
consider these 'challenges' a waste of time, but are in fact worthwhile someone's time
and interest. You on the other hand actively seek to put down any attempt for others
to have some fun at this, while contradicting yourself every step of the way.
On top of that you still take your time in solving these "tricks" even though you feel they are waste of time.
Hows that for an egotistical ejaculation.
Like you said only two posts ago, and clearly forgot about it,
it seems an opinion can't be offered without someone getting
their feelings hurt.
The difference is, i am going to step off.
If you still feel these "tricks" are your waste of time, do us a favor and don't bother taking a part in it.