ccna questions and answers pdf free download

ccna questions and answers pdf free download

10.1.34.4 10.1.45.4 10.1.45.5 5.5.5.5 OSPF checks by embedding the interface MTU field in a DBD packet. Fa0/0 Or Tunnel Id Area address Looking at the above topology, we need to establish a TE tunnel between R1 and R5 . Under normal network conditions, we want the tunnel path to be R1-R2-R5 , which is an explicit specified path. In order to make the tunnel path have a backup, we can define a path-option ,ccna questions and answers pdf free download, this path uses the dynamic setting method, let CSPF calculate it by itself, then the configuration is as above. Local 5.5.5.5 [110/31] via 10.1.23.3, 00:03:44, Ethernet0/1 // Prerequisites for advertising a label mapping message to a neighbor locally Config Parameters: Link[0 ]:Nbr IGP Id: 10.1.12.2, nbr_node_id:8, gen:47 frag_id 0, Intf Address:10.1.12.1 *Aug 18 09:06:07.919: Ip address 55.55.55.55 255.255.255.255 MPLS mode R3#show ip ospf database router 2.2.2.2 *Aug 18 11:26:02.546: Router ospf 1 Status 0x0000000E Therefore, the main functions of RSVP are: Replaces both IP Reachability TLVs ( 128 and 130 ) . Uses wide metrics ES [Note] Label behavior of Frame Mode 10.1.34.4 Mpls traffic-eng tunnels mpls label range 400 499 This will cause R2 to calculate the route, from the tunnel0 port to the 5 and 55 route metric becomes 32+1=33 , which is greater than the metric=31 of the route taken from e0/1 . So the routing table of R2 has changed, and the routes of the 5 and 55 network segments have become: 4 Although the implicit null tag also uses a tag with a tag value of 3 , tag 3 will never appear in the tag stack of the MPLS message, which is why it is called an implicit null tag. !! This is the mapping of IP The configuration of R4 is as follows: SRM and SSM are used to coordinate diffusion and database synchronization Mpls traffic-eng tunnels ip rsvp bandwidth And PSNP. 10.1.12.2 Ip address 10.1.123.2 255.255.255.0 Reference book Sender_Tspec R3.00-00 Bandwidth information Rational use of network resources 75000 *Aug 18 11:26:02.546: Next, let's look at the isis database of R1 : In area 49.0001, we can see that all routers flood their own LSPs . LSPs are represented by LSPIDs , such as R1.00-00 . This R1 is the hostname of the device . Here we have the default hostname mapping mechanism. See above. . In addition , 00 after R1 is a pseudo node identifier, and 00 means that the originating router of the LSP is not a DIS , and then the last 00 is a fragmentation flag. 204 Interface Net 49.0001.0000.0000.0004.00 lab environment Of course, when deploying, we strongly recommend that the same tunnel should have the same priority and priority. 10.1.34.0/24 Mpls traffic-eng tunnels ip rsvp bandwidth Tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute metric 9 FastEthernet1 / 0, Src IP addr: 10.1.13.3 Addresses bound to peer LDP Ident: 3 10.1.34.4 52 msec * 120 msec Physical_bw: 100000 (kbps), max_reservable_bw_global: 75000 (kbps) R2#show mpls traffic-eng link-management advertisements ! [5]: 75000 kbits/sec Local binding: tag: imp-null Fa0/0 Untag : Pops up all the tags and then forwards them according to the next hop (find FIB table). There are three reasons for the occurrence of untag : Reservable Bandwidth[0]: LSPID LSP Seq Num LSP Checksum LSP Holdtime ATT/P/OL Of course, not the remote tag in LIB will be used. We also need to combine the FIB table to get the next hop information about the prefix. Finally form the LFIB table: Net 49.0002.0000.0000.0004.00 Label space : Label Space Kbps (Global) Priority: 6 6 Affinity: 0x0/0xFFFF A little topic about OSPF in MPLS environment LSP TLV field of Level 2 route Take a look at the routing table for R1 : See the process of label exchange? Prove that the data is indeed on the TE tunnel . IGP Neighbor: ID 10.1.23.2 LDP certification In this way, my network resources will be more rationally utilized. When R1 goes to 1.0/24 and 2.0/24 , traffic will be sent to different tunnels on R1 . At this moment R1 is the head end of my tunnel , and R5 is the end. The tunnel can set bandwidth requirements so that my tunnel can make more scientific and reasonable routing in the network, not just using OSPF metric for routing. The calculation of the tunnel path is done on the R1, which is the tunnel first-end router. In order to enable the head-end router to calculate the tunnel path more reasonably (not only using metric , but also participating in the path with elements such as available bandwidth and link attributes. Computation), we need to extend the link state routing protocol running in the network, in order to flood the information required for more path calculations, extended OSPF and IS-IS can accomplish this task.