Free Cisco Written Dumps
For Top 50 Purchases 01:59:56

X

ccna dumps 2015

CCNA Routing And Switching 200-125 Written Dumps

( 15 People are currently looking at this product )

Exam Code: 200-125

Certification Provider: Cisco

Certification Exam Name:CCNA Routing & Switching

Update Date: Dec 05,2024

Free Cisco Written Dumps
For Top 50 Purchases
Latest Dumps
Numbers of Question & Answers

CCNA Routing & Switching Written Exam

Exam Number : 200-125 CCNA

Associated Certification : CCNA Routing & Switching

Duration : 75 minutes (55 - 65 questions)

Available Languages: English, Japanese


NOTE: This exam tests a candidate's knowledge and skills related to: Network fundamentals, LAN switching technologies, IPv4 and IPv6 routing technologies, WAN technologies, Infrastructure services, Infrastructure security, Infrastructure management.

ccna dumps 2015


Here is the most accurate CISCO CCIE WRITTEN exam questions and answers. All study materials need to be carefully selected by professional certification experts to ensure that you spend the least amount of money, time, and pass the high quality exam. There is also a professional service team that can customize your study plan for you to answer all your questions, PASSHOT's CCIE Written Dumps is definitely the biggest boost for you to test CCIE that helping you pass any Cisco exam at one time.

    ccna dumps 2015

  • 822 Reviews
  • R1#sh mpls forwarding-table Interface eth 0/2 *Aug 18 11:26:02.546: SESSION 0 kbits/sec i L2 1.1.1.0 [115/30] via 10.1.34.3, Serial0/1 2.2.2.2/32 Ip unnumbered Loopback0 tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng tunnel destination 5.5.5.5 This behavior will continue until the RESV message arrives at the head end router of the TE tunnel LSP . That is, after the request is made by the head end router, the label is advertised hop by hop from the tail router to the head end router. This shows that the TE tunnel uses the downstream passive DOD label distribution. Now, we have to build a TE tunnel from R1 to R6 with a bandwidth requirement of 30M . Note that the available bandwidth in the network at the moment is due to the above. *Aug 18 09:06:07.919: Token bucket fragment (service_id=1, length=6 words 1112 Mpls traffic-eng tunnels ip rsvp bandwidth Link IP Address: 10.1.12.2 Ip cef Complete MPLS TE configuration on R1 . Next , take a look at the Tunnel on R2 : Each IP prefix is ​​assigned a bunch of metrics . Interface Ethernet0/0 Area Address: 49.0001 N/P Next Hop Network 10.1.12.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 Interface fa0/0 After calculating the path, you need to reserve resources and distribute labels through RSVP . The RSVP path message is transmitted one hop along the calculated PATH and requests resources and labels. Then R7 will give the response and bring the label back. This tag distribution and resource reservation actions are also performed one by one. In this way, an LSP is finally established. !! Interface priority for electing DIS R1#sh mpls ldp bindings Tag request object The sub-TLV of 0-244B is mainly used for MPLS TE. Activate record route , which can make the PATH and RESV messages carry the record route object, record the IP passing along the tunnel , and can play a certain anti-ring effect. Of course, there are other important functions, which will be explained later. Then show it: Tag header TTL and IP header TTL is the same, is usually copied from IP header TTL value (when an IP packet enters the MPLS network), which is TTL propatation Therefore, the MPLS VPN environment, if we MPLS VPN Backbone inherent R1 to R5 establish a TE the Tunnel , is not Configure path protection on R2 and observe the phenomenon. Create a " pseudo-node LSP " in the broadcast subnet and advertise all the routes in the subnet (the LSP is similar to the LSA ) 75000 Path establishment and maintenance 10.1.12.2 LSP Local binding: tag: 103 !! Locally assigned label for prefix 3.3.3.3/32 Local tag Test the transmission process of the data stream, observe the phenomenon (Link ID) Designated Router address: 10.1.23.3 (Link Data) Router Interface address: 10.1.23.2 Number of MTID metrics: 0 LSPID R3.02-00 There are three HELLO packages in IS-IS : We see that the forwarding aspect of the data is this: Explicit Route: 10.1.45.5 5.5.5.5 Et0/1 Interface eth 0/1 Fa0/0 P2P Links: Multiacces Links: Network 10.1.23.3 0.0.0.0 area 0 The configuration of R4 is as follows: Router(config-if)# mpls traffic-eng path-option x {dynamic | explicit name y } [ lockdown ] 0xE1E2 1 10.1.12.2 12 msec 4 msec 4 msec Collect IP routing information obtained through other routing protocols the term Mpls traffic-eng router-id loopback 0 mpls traffic-eng level-1 End system adjacency routing ! *Aug 18 09:06:02.699: Layer 3 protocol ID: 2048 *Aug 18 09:06:07.919: Tun Dest: 5.5.5.5 Tun ID: 0 Ext Tun ID: 1.1.1.1 3.3.3.3 Mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0 mpls traffic-eng area 0 *Aug 18 09:06:02.699: version=0 length in words=10 ! Modify the bandwidth UP/DOWN threshold Configure the tunnel to use a statically specified path or a dynamic path calculated through the TE topology database. Untagged Configure this hidden command on the penultimate hop router (that is, R2 in the figure above ): 0x0000000F IGP floods TE information when: MPLS TE tunnel Network 10.1.23.3 0.0.0.0 area 0 IS-IS is PDU has . 4 Species : Ip router isis encapsulation frame-relay isis priority 100 Produce PoP and untag case 1.0.0.0 After calculating the path, you need to reserve resources and distribute labels through RSVP . The RSVP path message is transmitted one hop along the calculated PATH and requests resources and labels. Then R7 will give the response and bring the label back. This tag distribution and resource reservation actions are also performed one by one. In this way, an LSP is finally established. !! The outbound label is 301 Network 10.1.34.3 0.0.0.0 area 0 mpls traffic-eng router-id loopback0 mpls traffic-eng area 0 Record Route: 10.1.23.2 10.1.34.3 10.1.45.4 10.1.45.5 RFC 3784 P2P Links: Multiacces Links: Explicit Route: 10.1.45.5 5.5.5.5 Ip unnumbered Loopback0 tunnel destination 5.5.5.5 tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng FRR intf/label MPLS TE overview R1(config-keychain)#exit Ip cef IGP metric: 1 75000 ! Remote binding: tsr: 2.2.2.2:0, tag: imp-null 0 kbits/sec Outgoing The configuration of R5 is supplemented as follows: *Aug 18 04:37:06.239: Tun Sender: 1.1.1.1 LSP ID: 20 State: explicit path option 10 is active As with regular IP routes ,ccna dumps 2015, OSPF floods LSAs when the interface is up or manually modified for IGP interface parameters. basic concept 0/0/0 The L1 and L2 IIH PDUs on the LAN are sent to different multicast MAC addresses: L1 is 0180-C200-0014 , L2 is The configuration of R2 is as follows: *Aug 18 09:06:02.699: Path Latency (microseconds):0 Ip router isis Network 2.2.2.2 0.0.0.0 area 0 The configuration of R3 is as follows: Attribute Flags: 0x00000000 0/0/0 LDP is in Frame Mode . The LSR assigns a label to each route. The local direct route is assigned a POP. *Aug 18 09:06:02.699: Refresh Period (msec): 30000 Fa0/0 Conceptual introduction Since the IP prefix in the IS-IS area is the leaf of the SPF tree, part of the route calculation ( PRC ) is more, usually this means that in one Interface eth0 1/0 LDP non-directly connected neighbors Mpls traffic-eng tunnels ip rsvp bandwidth *Aug 18 11:31:44.598: Minimum Path Bandwidth (bytes/sec): 1250000 The first 6 is the setup priority and the second 6 is the hold priority . Reservable Bandwidth[1]: 200 Mpls traffic-eng tunnels ip rsvp bandwidth *Aug 18 11:26:02.546: Create a TE tunnel on R1 , the source is its own loopback0 , and the destination is 4.4.4.4 of R4 . Advertising Router: 1.1.1.1 LS Seq Number: 80000001 Version = 0 length in words = 7 service id = 5, service length = 6 The configuration of R2 is as follows: 0180-C200-0015 Mpls traffic-eng tunnels mpls ip Link ID:: 1 !! R2 has two direct links to participate in MPLS TE , this is the second *Aug 18 04:37:06.243: HOP type 1 length 12: Network 10.1.23.2 0.0.0.0 area 0 mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0 mpls traffic-eng area 0 In the LAN , SNPA refers to the MAC address. Remote binding: tsr: 2.2.2.2:0, tag: imp-null remote binding: tsr: 3.3.3.3:0 , tag: 301 0/0/0 NSAP address to host name mapping In the routing table, R3 goes to 1.1.1.1 and uses 10.1.34.4 and 10.1.23.2 equivalent load balancing. R3 found that the inbound tag 300 's tag package, the outbound tag is a POP , so he pops the top tag (actually a layer), and then directly throws the popped data to 10.1.34.4 , note that this time it does not need Find the FIB table again because there is already a next hop in the LFIB table. Eventually this data was passed to R4 . Label 1.1.1.1/32 Mpls traffic-eng tunnels ip rsvp bandwidth End LSP ID : End LSP ID . Indicates the last LSP ID of the LSP range described in the TLV field . Mpls ldp router-id loopback0 mpls label range 400 499 interface fast0/0 For this to work, adjacent LSRs must agree on which label to use for each IGP prefix., and each intermediate LSR must be able to figure out with which outgoing label the incoming label should be swapped Domain-wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS Outgoing interface Router isis bibliography O Ip address 10.1.23.3 255.255.255.0 Ip router isis interface Serial0/0 Mpls traffic-eng tunnels mpls label range 400 499 L1/L2 router re-releases external routes into IS-IS ( to level2 ) Opaque ID: 0 Unmarked / No Label: The entire label stack is removed and the message is forwarded in an unlabeled manner. The Auto Route is configured on the MPLS TE tunnel head-end router and only affects the OSPF route selection of the head-end router . Remote binding: tsr: 2.2.2.2:0, tag: imp-null tib entry: 10.1.13.0/24, rev 8(no route) Fa0/0 Type : 0x8848 (Multicast) The upper layer carries MPLS , looking for LFIB 0 kbits/sec IP 10.1.12.0/24 IP 1.1.1.1/32 TE Metric : Administrative weight Interface tunnel0 LDP is in Frame Mode . The LSR assigns a label to each route. The local direct route is assigned a POP. The configuration of R1 is as follows: The configuration of R3 is as follows: It has been verified by experiments. Use debug mpls traffic-eng tunnels events and debug mpls traffic-eng tunnels reoptimize . RSVP-TE requests to establish an LSP tunnel according to the above path. Non-broadcast multi-access link (in fact, IS-IS does not understand NBMA media) The metric configuration only affects the tunnel endpoint router itself, and does not advertise to other neighbors. But the forwarding adjacency feature is different. Moreover, the two methods of modifying the metric are not used. The autoroute needs to match the autoroute keyword to modify the metric and only affect the configurator itself. In the forwarding adjacency, the metric is modified directly in the tunnel interface . For example , if ISIS is used , then the isis metric command. If ospf is used , it is ip ospf cost .

Have any question for us?

Cisco Dumps Popular Search:

ccie security exam booking ccna syllabus 2015 pdf ccie security lab eve-ng new ccie security lab ccna free dumps 200-125 ccna question pool ccie security 4.0 written study guide ccie security v5 lab guide cisco security express exam ccie security mock lab

Copyright © 2024 PASSHOT All rights reserved.