9tut ccnp 300-101

9tut ccnp 300-101

Experiment 1 After completing the above steps, the logical etherchannel interface is set up. BGP routing table entry for 100.100.100.0/24, version 2 Paths: (2 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Flag: 0x820 So R2 can ping through 3.3.3.3 ( Optional ) It is valid only when the router (or Layer 3 switch) disables the routing function ( no ip routing ); So far, we have completed the basic configuration, then can ping the same 100.0.1.1 and 2.1 from R4 ? After the trial , we must get a negative answer. This is because there is no route in AS345 on R1 and R2 , that is, the backhaul route has a problem. In this topology, we can configure the backhaul route on R1 and R2 or Default route to complete the test of the experiment 201 200 Access-list 1 permit 192.168.1.0 R2#sh ip route For 802.1D , when a port is elected as the designated interface, which from blocking to forwarding at least 30S of time. However, in RSTP , the proposal/Agreement mechanism enables the interface to complete a fast, reliable transition in seconds. RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement 1 5 RIP Message Format R3 and R4 , R4 and R5 establish an IBGP neighbor relationship, and R3R4R5 uses LOOPBACK as the update source and refers to the neighbor . Here are a few concepts to make clear: Router#show ip route !! Take the default route Router bgp 345 Used in route-map , when some of the matching entry, and using the set command, the route-map used in a neighbor (e.g., out time direction),9tut ccnp 300-101, then to update the route to a neighbor, the BGP of MED properties will Inherit the metric value of these routes in the local IGP In AS inside, due to the presence IBGP split horizon, making BGProuter had twenty-two established between IBGP connection, in order to get the full BGP routing updates, but this is a very low scalability approach, but also brought to the network device The two effective ways to solve the IBGP scalability problem are route reflectors and federation. Compared with the federation, the route reflector has the advantage that all routers in the federation need to support and understand the federated mechanism. The route reflector only needs the RR to understand the reflector mechanism. In addition, the implementation mechanism of the route reflector is relatively simple. Of course, if you want to manage large-scale AS with various EBGP mechanisms , then the federation will be a better solution.