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

X

ccna current exam code

ccna current exam code


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 Routing And Switching 200-125 Written Dumps

( 19 People are currently looking at this product )

Exam Code: 200-125

Certification Provider: Cisco

Certification Exam Name:CCNA Routing & Switching

Update Date: Mar 27,2024

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

100% Pass Exam

We guarantee that you can pass the exam successfully. If the test encounters a change, it will lead to disqualification. You can continue the service time free of charge by giving us the information that failed the test on the day.


100% Accurate Questions

All the information is up-to-date. We will update and remind you all the latest news.


Question bank verified by experts

The best teacher with the best study materials will definitely help you pass the certification exam.


Pass the least time

According to the survey, have 96% of students pass the exam during 5 days successfully.


Simulate the real test environment

Students can experience a real Cisco exam in a simulated practice environment. Giving students a better exam experience.


24-hour service support

We can provide you with the best service support through Whatsapp & Skype


Customer information is strictly protected

In the security and privacy of our customers, we guarantee that we will never disclose the student’s personal data to any third party.


    ccna current exam code

  • 397 Reviews
  • DIS send HELLO interval ordinary packet router of 1/3 (default 3.3s ) Average rate=250000 bytes/sec, burst depth=1000 bytes *Aug 18 04:37:06.239: Incoming PathError: !!R2 sends a patherror message to R1 No synchronization Modify ldp holdtime , default 15S Ip cef The trick of traditional IP routing: ISIS default flooding period is 15 minutes by lsp-refresh-interval Review In the dynamic setup, let the tunnel head end router calculate the path that the TE tunnel can traverse the network to the tail end in an optimal manner. We only need to configure the destination of the tunnel , and then the first-end router uses the CSPF algorithm to calculate the path itself. Router(config)#interface tunnel x R5 configuration is as follows LSP TLV field of Level 2 route Downstream assigned label 10.1.23.0/24 100 From which interface a tag packet is received, as long as it has this tag, it will be exchanged. R2.00-00 Label space : Label Space And OSPF difference is that a router must belong to a whole region, the border area can not on the router, it said, the interface can not belong to a certain area, the other interface belonging to other regions The configuration of R2 is as follows (all configurations are omitted from the configuration of interface IP ): R3.02-00 Tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute metric absolute y We see that in the LFIB of R3 , going to the destination of 1.1.1.1 , there are two label paths for load balancing. Res. Global BW: 75000 kbits/sec !! interface's maximum reservable bandwidth If you still can't distinguish, choose one randomly. R1#show mpls forwarding-table Can use the default or use this command to modify Router(config-if)# bandwidth ? *Aug 18 09:06:07.919: Incoming PROXY_PATH: *Aug 18 11:26:02.546: Router-id 2.2.2.2 ISO 10589 requires that the hello data be padded to the MTU size of the output interface , which means that the same MTU is usually used at both ends of the adjacency relationship. 1.3 OSI protocol stack terminology *Aug 18 09:06:02.699: version:1 flags:0000 cksum:5878 ttl:255 reserved:0 length:216 The interface of each router activates RSVP and MPLS TE tunnel support. Attribute Flags: 0x00000000 104 R1#show ip ospf database opaque-area self-originate If you want the penultimate hop router to recognize the "explicit empty tag" advertised by the tail router as "explicit empty tag", then you can Next-address loose 10.1.45.5 Type escape sequence to abort. Tracing the route to 4.4.4.4 Parameters: RFC 3847 MPLS TE overview R1#debug isis adj-packets NET 0/0/0 Config Parameters: Router ospf 1 Tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 10 dynamic *Aug 18 09:06:02.699: Minimum Path Bandwidth (bytes/sec): 1250000 Level1 area RFC 2973 Area Address(es): 49.0001 SNPA: cc03.1ab0.0000 Network 5.5.5.5 0.0.0.0 area 0 IS-IS packets are encapsulated in data link layer frames. Fa0/0 Use the lockdown keyword (note that the above configuration is configured in the TE tunnel port). Maximum interface available bandwidth: Interface loopback0 But if the router performing load balancing is a P router, what does it receive is a label package with multiple labels? We know that no matter how many tags you have, the tag stack is followed by the IP header, and the first field of the IP packet is version , if Partition repair: on . 8 bits if the LSP originating router supports the repair area division is set this field Attached bits : the first 4-7 bits, for setting the LSP association with another area available with the following metrics: of . 4 -bit - default; 5th bit - delay; 6th bit - overhead; 7th bit - error Ip cef Next Hop In a typical network design, multiple independent Level1 areas are connected through a backbone network, and the backbone network is composed of routers with Level 2 routing functions. The Level1-2 router has two independent link state databases that support Level1 and Level2 routing , respectively . Reserved label 10.1.56.5 [MPLS: Label 505 Exp 0] 8 msec 0 msec 0 msec Terminal system ES Reservable Bandwidth[1]: There may be two levels of link state databases: 5.5.5.5 10.1.23.3 [MPLS: Labels 304/505 Exp 0] 4 msec 4 msec 4 msec Outgoing Link status changes C . There is a small detail, noted that the distribution of the label no concept of split horizon, that although B may be from C to learn the route to X , but B still will be prefixed with X passed to the bundled label C . C will also put the label passed from B in the LIB , but don't worry about loops, because LDP can prevent loops by means of IGP routing protocol. Src 1.1.1.1, Dst 5.5.5.5, Tun_Id 0, Tun_Instance 26 4.4.4.4/32, version 12, epoch 0, cached adjacency 10.1.12.2 0x00000017 Outgoing interface IP 10.1.123.0 255.255.255.0 C Show mpls ldp parameters Protocol version: 1 *Aug 18 09:06:07.919: Controlled Load Service break bit=0 service length=0 Ciphertext LSPs authentication ( Level2 ) Admin: up *Aug 18 04:37:06.243: min unit = 0 bytes,max pkt size = 1500 bytes Interface fast 1/0 !! Interface priority for electing DIS FRR intf/label Active Path Option Parameters: Support IP classless routing prefix (support VLSM ) 0x18B7 201 The initial configuration is as above. In the current environment, R1 does not activate fastreroute , and R2 does not deploy a protective tunnel . First, in R1 the debug ip rsvp dump-messages * 10.1.123.2, from 2.2.2.2, via FastEthernet0/0 R2# show ip route 10 Router(config-if)#mpls traffic-eng flooding thresholds up/down ? Ok, now let's analyze, when R1 wants to send data to R4 's Loopback 4.4.4.4 , how the data is transmitted. First analyze the control level: Interface tunnel0 RFC1195 Configuration command When we select a DIS , DIS represents the broadcast network, including all ISs connected to the broadcast network. ! Both TE3 and R5 must establish a TE tunnel . That is, the TE tunnel must be bidirectional. 10.1.23.2 The loopback0 address space of all devices is xxxx/32 ,ccna current exam code, and x is the device number. Reservable Bandwidth[7]: Related RFCs 0 (only media is shared) Next hop 10.1.12.2, FastEthernet0/0 valid cached adjacency Interface tunnel0 Ip address 10.1.12.2 255.255.255.0 If the payload of the MPLS is an IPv4 packet, load balancing is implemented by hashing the source and destination IP addresses of the IPv4 packet header . Fa0/0 Basic configuration If the PSNP acknowledgment is still not received after the retransmission timout , the originating router will retransmit the LSP. TOS 0 Metrics: 65535 Interface Tunnel0 Sender_Template Interface fast 0/0 The route prefix is ​​learned locally by the IGP , but the next hop router of the route prefix must advertise the label mapping message corresponding to the prefix to the local, and the local will assign a label to the prefix. Ip cef In this way , we can exchange visits between 5.5.5.5 and 6.6.6.6 , on R6 . Configure MPLS TE tunnel on R1 . The IS-IS area defined in ISO 10589 is the stub area. Attached defines four metric types. CISCO IOS only supports the default metric . *Aug 18 11:31:44.598: 75000 Net 49.0002.0000.0000.0004.00 After completing the above configuration, R2 and R5 will advertise this tunnel in their own Class 1 LSA , just like a direct link. On the L1/L2 router , the routes of the subordinate Level1 area are summarized, so that the summary route is learned in the backbone or level2 area , and the configuration is as above. 75000 If you change the Path-selection metric to igp , the shortest path to the tunnel will ignore the configuration in the physical interface. ISO 10589 requires that the hello data be padded to the MTU size of the output interface , which means that the same MTU is usually used at both ends of the adjacency relationship. O 5.5.5.5 [110/31] via 4.4.4.4, 00:23:47, Tunnel0 The bandwidth information that MPLS TE needs to advertise is: Bandwidth: 2000 IGP System ID: 2.2.2.2 10.1.12.2 Egress LSRs — Egress LSRs receive labeled packets, remove the label(s), and send them on a data link. Ingress and egress LSRs are edge LSRs. *Aug 18 04:37:06.239: HOP type 1 length 12: Ip address 10.1.12.2 255.255.255.0 The attribute tag is a 32-bit field, which is described in detail later. Then from the tunnel0 port, cost=1+1=2 , better, so the routing table of R2 changes: Number of Links : 1 Local binding: tag: imp-null Are public agreements (compared to CISCO's private EIGRP ) The static route forwarding mode of the MPLS TE tunnel supports route recursion. Note: a FEC can contain multiple streams, but not a stream of a FEC , such as looking at a host Sina website, which is a stream and looking at Sina's video, which in turn is a stream, the two streams When Sina sends to a remote host, the path should be the same, so one FEC has multiple streams, but each stream does not belong to a separate FEC. The Level 2 LSP contains all the prefix information that may be reached in IS-IS . Level1 LSP is only used in the local area. My Address: 10.1.12.1 LSP ID (link status packet identifier) Device Internet segment 10.1.xy.0 / 24 , where xy is the device number, X small y large Mpls traffic-eng tunnels ip rsvp bandwidth Fa0/0 Create a " pseudo-node LSP " in the broadcast subnet and advertise all the routes in the subnet (the LSP is similar to the LSA ) 75M Network 10.1.12.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 Reservable Bandwidth[1]: Record Route: NONE One goes from tunnel0 , cost=1000+1=1001 one goes from eth0/1 , cost=10+10+10+1=31 *Aug 18 04:37:06.239: SESSION type 7 length 16: (Link ID) Designated Router address: 10.1.23.3 (Link Data) Router Interface address: 10.1.23.2 Number of MTID metrics: 0 The routing table for R1 is as follows: 199 , R2 is 200 299 , and so on. We see that R5-PE2 assigns a 505 label to VPN customer route 6.6.6.6 . *Aug 18 09:06:07.919: Set-overload-bit I/E ( ... omit... ) ----------- Show ip route isis Switched Mpls traffic-eng signalling interpret explicit-null verbatim Router-id 5.5.5.5 *Aug 18 09:06:07.919: SESSION_ATTRIBUTE type 7 length 16: Control metric through dynamic routing protocol to affect routing routing Reservable Bandwidth[0]: Interface priority (default 64 ), attention and OSPF difference is that priority 0 of IS are also involved in DIS election Tunnel priority Precautions: Tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 5 5 Link IP Address: 10.1.23.2 Collects reachable NSAP prefix information, which is only used for inter-area ISO CLNP roads. In CISCO IOS routers, IOS cannot automatically allocate bandwidth-based link (interface) metrics. Regardless of the bandwidth of the link, the default IS-IS metric for all interfaces is 10 , of course you can modify it. The maximum metric for a full path is 1023 . Of course, the IETF has extended the default metric . Routing information diffusion and database synchronization Test the transmission process of the data stream, observe the phenomenon 0xA538 Ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 Router-id 1.1.1.1 Then go to R2 and look at it: Create a TE tunnel on R1 , the source is its own loopback0 , and the destination is 4.4.4.4 of R4 . R3#show mpls forwarding-table *Aug 18 11:26:02.546: Router(config)#interface tunnel x Filter_Spec Basic experiment Interface eth 0/1 10.1.12.0/24 R1#sh mpls ldp bindings Set-overload-bit suppress external Bandwidth: 20000 kbps (Global) Priority: 7 7 Affinity: 0x0/0xFFFF Metric Type: TE (default) 0/0/1 ! The interface of each router activates RSVP and MPLS TE tunnel support. Router(cfg-ip-expl-path)#next-address 10.1.25.5 Router(cfg-ip-expl-path)# Ip address 10.1.23.3 255.255.255.0 Interface fast1/0 Mpls traffic-eng tunnels ip rsvp bandwidth The configuration of R3 is as follows: According to the protection object can be divided into: State Changed: 02:23:31 3 10.1.34.4 52 msec * 120 msec The OSPF adjacency cannot be established, but R1 has only one available path to reach R2 , so OSPF adjacency is established unconditionally. At the same time, R1 and R2 will directly announce the 10.1.12.0/24 direct link, which will be advertised with the largest metric 65535 . The purpose of this is that if the network environment is a redundant link environment, then the metric of the link can be made the worst from the perspective of the IGP , so that the LDP path bypasses the link.

Have any question for us?

Cisco Dumps Popular Search:

vce ccie security ccie security v5 expanded blueprint ccnp switch official study guide pdf ccnp switch ahmed abdallah ine ccnp r&s video course ccie r&s vs ccie security ccna latest dumps 200-125 pdf ccna past papers pdf ccnp switch exam update ccie security lab exam booking

Copyright © 2024 PASSHOT All rights reserved.