ccnp 300-101 new questions

ccnp 300-101 new questions

Bindings are just special address pools. There is no limit on the number of manual bindings, but you can only configure one manual binding per host pool. Router eigrp 100 Remote-ID suboption fields Neighbor 5.5.5.5 remote-as 345 LocPrf RouterID : 172.16.13.1 Fa0/20 IP protocol number 89 Maximum life Command Local origin 1 Load balancing mode 16 172.16.10.1 , in fact, this IP may be understood as 172.16.0.0/16 within the network, but also in 172.16.10.0/24 within the network, of course, here we can see it, then who is more accurate? It is clear that 172.16.10.0/24 is more accurate, we say that its matching length is longer than 172.16.0.0 . Metric But what if the A route is an OSPF external route? Set ip next-hop 10.2.2.2 The packet contains a maximum of 25 routing entries. Solution 1 , modify the default AD value of BGP so that its EBGP route AD value is greater than RIP to achieve the preferred purpose,ccnp 300-101 new questions, but this solution may not be appropriate, because he will have an impression on all BGP routes, if only hope for 1.1.1.0 And 2.2.2.0 has an impact? R3 and R5 both advertise the routes of the same network segment to R4 . If the first eight rules cannot be determined, if R4 is configured: Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal Local Public In addition, if there are multiple links between two EBGPs and use their respective Loopback ports as the source , you should also pay attention to the configuration. Ebgp-multihop 2 (because loopback spans two routers, including this one ), and must also refer to static routing to the other's loopback interface. ) BGP neighbor RouterID : 172.16.8.1 After the maximum number of allowed MAC addresses of the port-security interface is set , the security address entries associated with the interface can be obtained as follows: Ip route 10.1.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.254.1 Community value (route), then how to write it? If you directly match no-export , it will match with 11.11.11.0 , so you should use the exact-match keyword. If configured on R3 as follows: Load distribution: 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 (refcount 1) Path Difficult case 60 We spotted FIG, R1 and R2 between runs RIP to exchange routing information, R2 by RIP learned the R1 release over 192.168.1.0/24 and 2.0 / 24 routing information loaded into the routing table, labeled R & lt . While R2 and R3 and running OSPF , establish OSPF adjacency, R2 also from R3 , by OSPF learned the two routes: 3.0 and 4.0 / 24 , is also loaded into the routing table, labeled O . So, for R2 , it has its own route to the whole network, but inside R2 , we can understand this : it will not change the route learned from RIP .The OSPF route is told to R3 , and the route learned from OSPF is not sent to R1 as a RIP route . For R2 , although there is complete routing information in its own routing table, it is as if there is a gap between the entries of R and O , which cannot be exceeded.