ccnp 300-115 labs

ccnp 300-115 labs

Lowest sender port ID Set the outgoing interface of the data R1 and R3 , R2, and R5 establish an EBGP neighbor relationship. / / Kill 11.0 release all details except 11.0 20 . 100.100.100.0 [20/0] via 10.1.23.3, 00:02:57 Ip helper-address command can configure the first to receive client broadcasts emanating discovery on the interface that three packets, after the broadcast DHCP messages will be relayed to unicast packets, is to take the IP routing It is. So if we use a solution that re-releases static summary routes: Configuration example 5 (in the single routing protocol environment - OSPF out direction distribution list) In the example, the static route associated with the next hop does not have this attribute, so it is not matched. 20.20.20.0/24 Ip summary-address rip xxxx yyyy // Note that this summary does not support CIDR supernet . 802.1D situation: Topology change mechanism (detection) DAI configuration command Reviser Neighbor R3 filter-list 1 weight 4000 Sw1(config)#interface range fastEthernet 0/1 – 2 // Enter interface range Sw1(config-if-range)#switchport // Configure the interface as a Layer 2 interface or: Vlan 10 AS No. 16bit local AS Number LocPrf LocPrf IBGP non-equivalent load balancing The setting of the weight value can only be done locally and cannot be passed to any BGP neighbor. This strategy, we can also do on R3 , but the implementation direction of the strategy is in . FastEthernet0/0 Idle Knowledge review On R2 , going to the 100 network will use R1 and R3 as the next hop for equal load balancing (although R3 's uplink port has smaller bandwidth, but it is directly connected). The BGP update package is as follows. You can note that the length of the AS is 2 , which is " 300 , 100 ". Note that this is an ordered list of ASs . 10.1.13.1 4 3 The BGP configuration of R4 is as follows: Configured on the interface, the portfast feature does not have to be implemented and can be implemented independently. Of course, it is recommended to use the portfast feature. Neighbor 5.5.5.5 update-source Loopback0 External BGP None Track 1 rtr 1 reachability In other words, R1 is not required to have a default route locally. Precautions: Focus on the configuration of GW : Layer 2 interface (switchport) : access mode, trunk mode // is equivalent to route-map not matching ( permit ) any entry, so all details are released Y The experiment is completed here, we set MARK , then we will analyze the impact of various attributes on the routing. technical background Now, we have to go through the calculations to get a summary of the segments that are just "inclusive". ------------------ 00:B0:64:04:09:99 Authentication is identified by setting the address family ID field to all 1s ( 0xFFFF ). Ip arp inspection limit {rate pps [burst interval seconds ] | none} Two-way re-release on R2 . Under normal circumstances, R1 can learn 3.3.3.0 , and R3 can learn 1.1.1.0. Show ip dhcp server statistics Shows count information about statistics and messages sent and received Virtual-PPP Virtual PPP interface Virtual-Template Virtual Template interface 5.5.5.5 Ip address 192.168.10.254 255.255.255.0 Ipv6 does not support RA(as200) RB(as100) RC(as100) AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd Management adjustments DHCPsnooping Multiple paths have the same RouterID because they are received from the same router. Match ad ,ccnp 300-115 labs, abcd , aaabcd, etc. Suppress-map unsuppress-map advertise-map inject-map Ip as-path access-list 1 permit _1$ Redirection enabled, 597.032 sec remaining (maximum 600 sec) Time to live: 14397.032 sec (maximum 14400 sec) RR can modify the cluster-id ACLs to release or discard ARP packets. As OSPF2 create a route in the static summary routes ( the Null0 ), and static routes redistributed into OSPF1 modified OSPF1 administrative distance, the OSPF1 priority than OSPF2 administrative distance Preferably EBGP route 20 Route-map nat2 permit 10 match ip address 1 ? Rule validation ( AS_SET type AS_PATH , i.e. {} in the AS number in AS_PATH when calculated as a hop) Process exchange Neighbor 3.3.3.3 route-map WT1 in neighbor 5.5.5.5 route-map WT2 in We found a very strange phenomenon. R4 eventually went to 100.0 and both networks chose 3.3.3.3 as the next hop instead of metric . Why? Originally, the MED attribute, the BGP router only compares the MED values of the routes originating from the same host by default , and R1 and R2 belong to AS100 and AS200 respectively . Then, for R4 , the two paths of the 100.0.1.0 route are from different ASs , the default It bypasses the MED comparison, and finally, the rule that affects the routing is: " The RID of the BGP neighbor (the smaller the priority).