Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move
fredrikjj wrote: » I'm just trying to keep myself motivated since I don't find the switch exam nearly as engaging as route was. I've found that I'm able to study longer hours if I'm writing something at the same time, and I really want to finish in 2 months instead of 3 like last time.
Thank you Fredrik for these notes
fredrikjj wrote: » I've scheduled the SWITCH exam for Friday. I'd say that I'm better prepared than for ROUTE so I'd be surprised if I fail. I'm very confident on the actual technologies, except perhaps 802.1X that I haven't really tested beyond enabling it on a switch and pointing to an imaginary RADIUS server. Still, I worry because I could see myself failing due to some simulation issues or weird planning questions that I don't know how to prepare for.
I'm not sure how deep the CCNP exam will go with 802.1x, but I ended up building a RADIUS server in my test lab. In the process, I learned more about RADIUS than I did about 802.1x. For the exam, I am of the opinion that if you can remember the few commands covered in the book and default states, you're probably good to go.
I know the exam curriculum places a heavy emphasis on Spanning Tree, but I feel like I'm going to get absolutely hammered with security and FHRP concepts.
blackhawk364 wrote: » Thanks Fredrik for the notes and good luck with the exam. I just passed ROUTE today (2nd attempt) and will start studying for the SWITCH by reading your notes first
FloOz wrote: » Congrats on the pass!
Congrats fredrikjj! Thanks for taking time to review the exam too.
joetest wrote: » grats you give me hope for my Route exam. If the switch is harder than Route then yeeh for me now go nail that TSHOOT
Danielh22185 wrote: » Congrats on the pass! You are almost there!
fredrikjj wrote: » Day 34 Re: the talk about network types yesterday. I've now figured out the purpose of point-to-multipoint. In a full mesh topology, having a DR isn't a good idea because if a router loses it's direct layer 2 connection to the DR, it loses its ability to send LSAs to that DR despite still having an indirect path to it via other routers. You would still be able to ping the DR in that scenario, but OSPF won't function properly. In a hub-and-spoke this doesn't matter because if the connection to the DR is lost, there's no other paths anyway, but If you are paying extra for a full mesh you want the network to still be functional even if one specific circuit goes down. Point-to-multipoint creates the magic sauce that makes that happen. I also did some debugging on the adjacency process, trying to break it in various ways. How the adjacency process works: (debug output is from 'debug ip ospf adj') 1. The router sends hello packets out the interface when OSPF is enabled. Before the router has received a hello packet from another router it's in the DOWN state. 2. When the router receives a hello packet from another router it goes into 'INIT' OSPF: Rcv DBD from 0.0.0.2 on FastEthernet1/0 seq 0x20B opt 0x52 flag 0x7 len 32 mtu 1500 state INIT The FLG says a hello packet makes a router go into INIT, but this output clearly says DBD which must stand for database descriptor, packet type 2. The DBD describes the LSAs in a router's database. Now, this could mean that the debug output says DBD but it was actually a hello packet that was received. Or, it was an actual DBD packet. Either way, it's mildly confusing. 3. When the router receives a hello from another router it adds that router's router-id to its own hello packets. Once a router receives a packet with its own router-id it knows that it has established communication with another router and goes into the two-way state. OSPF: 2 Way Communication to 0.0.0.2 on FastEthernet1/0, state 2WAY 4. At this point, if the network type is broadcast, there's a DR/BDR election according to priority settings, or highest router-id if the same priorities. OSPF: Elect BDR 0.0.0.1 OSPF: Elect DR 0.0.0.2 5. The routers now want to synchronize their databases. FastEthernet1/0 Nbr 0.0.0.2: Prepare dbase exchange OSPF: Send DBD to 0.0.0.2 on FastEthernet1/0 seq 0x10B7 opt 0x52 flag 0x7 len 32 OSPF: Rcv DBD from 0.0.0.2 on FastEthernet1/0 seq 0x1103 opt 0x52 flag 0x7 len 32 mtu 1500 state EXSTART NBR Negotiation Done. We are the SLAVE The router on the other side has become MASTER. The FLG doesn't go into specifics as to what the significance of this master/slave relationship is. 6. The actual exchange takes place OSPF: Rcv DBD from 0.0.0.2 on FastEthernet1/0 seq 0x25E3 opt 0x52 flag 0x1 len 72 mtu 1500 state EXCHANGE OSPF: Exchange Done with 0.0.0.2 on FastEthernet1/0 OSPF: Send LS REQ to 0.0.0.2 length 12 LSA count 1 OSPF: Send DBD to 0.0.0.2 on FastEthernet1/0 seq 0x25E3 opt 0x52 flag 0x0 len 32 OSPF: Rcv LS UPD from 0.0.0.2 on FastEthernet1/0 length 64 LSA count 1 OSPF: Synchronized with 0.0.0.2 on FastEthernet1/0, state FULL 7. The database is now in synch with the neighbor and they are both in the 'FULL' state.//Mismatched timers So why even care about this type of debugging? After all, as long as you double check that the variables that must match do in fact match (area, hello/dead intervall, authentication, stub flag), shouldn't things just work? Yes, but for example, what if you can't log in to the other device because it's managed by someone else. If all you got is show ip ospf neighbor, and that shows you nothing, what do you do? You could call that other administrator up and say "IT IS NOT WORKING!", or you could go deeper. I configured a hello intervall of 9 seconds instead of 10 on the other router. debug ip ospf adj won't give you anything, and show ip ospf neighbor gives you this, incredibly useful output: R1#show ip ospf neigh <blank> R1# I nstead, let's turn on debug ip ospf hello. OSPF: Rcv hello from 0.0.0.2 area 0 from FastEthernet1/0 1.1.1.2 OSPF: Mismatched hello parameters from 1.1.1.2 OSPF: Dead R 36 C 40, Hello R 9 C 10 Mask R 255.255.255.0 C 255.255.255.0 We're able to determine that the remote hello timer of 9 doesn't match ours (and dead the timer of 36 - it defaults to 4 times the hello). Now, instead of calling and saying "It's not working" you'd be able to say "it seems like the hello timers you guys told us to use don't match what you are actually running on your end". You'll sound like you know what you are talking about and the issue will probably be resolved faster. And even if you had access to the other device, this would probably be quicker than actually double checking all the parameters manually. Another interesting thing I found when I tried to deliberately break the adjaceny process is that a point-to-point interface will play with a broadcast interface. At least on the point-to-point ethernet segment I'm using for testing. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since it's not mentioned that those need to match. Don't ask me if this has any implications.//Area mismatch Next I messed around with area mismatches. OSPF won't be able to form an adjaceny if the area # doesn't match. The problem is that the debug ip ospf hello command we used previously is insufficient. R3(config-if)# *Oct 24 04:41:55.639: OSPF: Send hello to 224.0.0.5 area 2 on Serial1/0 from 10.0.0.2 R2(config-if)# *Oct 24 04:43:34.359: OSPF: Send hello to 224.0.0.5 area 1 on Serial2/0 from 10.0.0.1 No hellos are received according to this output, which I find suspect to be honest. If we go back to debug ip ospf adj, we're informed of the problem immediately: R3#debug ip ospf adj OSPF adjacency events debugging is on R3# OSPF: Rcv pkt from 10.0.0.1, Serial1/0, area 0.0.0.2 mismatch area 0.0.0.1 in the header Another failure scenario in the adjacancy process that I came up with is if one side of the link is non-broadcast and they forgot to tell you. How would you troubleshoot this? You probably won't beacause it'll still work. Presumably because the broadcast side of the link will multicast its IP address, and then the other side will unicast the response. But, if you configure both sides of the link to non-broadcast, they won't become adjacent even if you can ping 224.0.0.5 just fine.//Mismatched stub flag Seen with debug ip ospf hello OSPF: Rcv hello from 0.0.0.2 area 2 from Serial1/0 10.0.0.1 OSPF: Hello from 10.0.0.1 with mismatched Stub/Transit area option bit debug adjaceny won't show anything. Why is there such inconsistency in what debug commands show what when it comes to the adjaceny process?//authentication. debug ip ospf adj will show you mismatched authentication OSPF: Rcv pkt from 10.0.0.1, Serial1/0 : Mismatch Authentication type. Input packet specified type 2, we use type 0 type 0: null type 1: simple type 2: md5 If we have the right type, but the wrong key we get: OSPF: Rcv pkt from 10.0.0.1, Serial1/0 : Mismatch Authentication Key - No message digest key 1 on interface//LSA I've pretty much memorized the LSAs by repeatedly drawing diagrams of their propagation. I'm a little bit confused about type 2 LSAs though. Why do we need them when we have type 1s? The FLG is fairly sparse on details, but from what little information is there, I've imagined that type 1 LSAs don't actually contain the full information about transit networks, and only point to the DR. The type 2 LSA then informs the router about the actual full details about that network, should it be required. Is this how it works?
bharvey92 wrote: » Thanks. I just found in general the concept of breaking things in lab to view the error messages practically is very useful. Something I've never stupidly done! Good luck with the rest of your stuides!
Afaik, multicast,mpls and qos won't be in the new lab or am I wrong?
fredrikjj wrote: » I'm assuming that this was posted in the wrong thread?
Compare salaries for top cybersecurity certifications. Free download for TechExams community.