visasman

NO change in DES questions at all locations.... Even the vendors have not confirmed this. If anyone still claims there are changes in the DES questions, please share them with proof, otherwise say nothing.

Hello everyone! Two more candidates have passed the exam - So, the solution is still valid, mainly no change in the DES questions. Don't get distracted, focus on speed and clear the exam easily. Good luck!!!

@dreamy Check your inbox.

@gils You can check your inbox.

That's right. but need to stop advertising 14.0.0.0 as it is not necessary to branches 1, 2 and HQ. (r24) router ospf 1 redistribute eigrp 65006 subnets tag 100 >>>>>>>> This will cover the 10.200.0.0 & 14.0.0.0 as well summary-address 10.6.0.0 255.254.0.0 tag 100 >>>>>>> this is needed to summarize branch 3 & 4 routes summary-address 14.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 not-advertise >>>>>>>>> to filter this unnecessary route advertised via EIGRP redistribution

Given the request of some users, I am removing transparency from the content. My idea is to share knowledge and help users, not to destroy the reputation of someone.

B'lore pod is stable, appear ASAP!

We hear only for the DES

Keep me posted guys, it's very important for me because I only have a few days left before the exam.

The vendors (Spoto, CLC) say there are no new DESIGN questions, however some users report that there are new DES 10Q in Richardson, Sydney and Brussels. I'll be making the second attempt in one of those locations soon, I don't know what I will face 🤞.

Still, it is difficult to decide whether the preconfigured two /16s or the single /15 should be used for Centralised Policy control. Only the passed candidates can answer this.

10.6.0.0/15 is good to summarise b3/b4 routes and R24 will outadvertise as Type 5 external route meeting the requirement.

Your question is difficult to understand. Can you explain more?

I too did not do it in my last attempt. But in the latest workbook, the main task asks to make HQ FABD2 site mutual visibility with the IaaS site for both IPv4 and IPv6 routes. This can only be configured in R3 & R4 by using an additional route target value 10000:3681. I understand IPv6, but the mutual visibility of IPv4 is unclear. When R4 sends HQ summary routes 10.1.0.0/16, which giosk IPv4 routes will advertise to R3? My Solution: IaaS has already configured route-target 10000:414 (IPv6: 2001:db8:14::1/128). We need to use route-target 10000:3681 for HQ routes (IPv4: 10.1.0.0/16, IPv6: 2001:db8:1:xxx::/64) In R3, set route-target export/import for vrf 'fabd2': vrf definition fabd2 route-target export 10000:3681 route-target import 10000:414 In R4, set route-target export/import for vrf 'giosk': vrf definition giosk route-target import 10000:3681 route-target export 10000:414 (this is preconfigured)

Dear all I see that some vendor solutions recommend advertising HQ summary routes 10.1.0.0/16 to IaaS R30 (see config below). Is it really necessary? Or has anyone done so in their exam? Please share your thoughts. R4 == ! interface loopback0 ip address 100.255.254.4 255.255.255.255 ! vrf definition giosk route-target import 10000:3681 ! ip prefix-list HQ seq 5 permi 10.1.0.0/16 le 32 ! router bgp 10000 add ipv4 vrf giosk neighbor 100.4.30.6 prefix-list HQ out !

During my first attempt, I mentioned in my post that I skipped 2.1 and started 2.2, but I could not continue with 2.2 because the SDA border nodes were not synchronised which prevented 2.2. I did the synchronisation and then it went fine. So, do check the sync part.

Indeed, I used the preconfigured prefix-list and the routing control worked well for me.

You need to make sure you move all tabs from "unread" status to "read" status. At the end of the exam, you have to keep all of the device CLI in the "PRIVILEGE MODE #"

One more.. ! topology base summary-metric 0.0.0.0/0 distance 200 !

I used the preconfigured prefix-list 10.4.0.0/16, 10.5.0.0/16. In the exam, I did not notice the condition to use /15. Can you please elaborate that?

Today, I took the exam and failed in DOO. I will write my feedback/comments of each section in a separate post. Thanks!

yes, I tested in the practice lab.... It did not ask for additional policies. In the real lab exam, the question explicitly asked to select "Layer2 Flooding" for IoT only? Anyway I'll find out tomorrow 😉

Very nice article. Thanks a lot! For this task, does anyone know the exact steps? I could not get TACACS live logs from the Fabric switches, although my DNA is synchronized/managed with the Fabric switches and integrated with ISE.

In this section, when assigning the IP address pool to the VNs, should the 'Layer 2 Flooding' option be selected only for IoT and not for employees and Guests? If anyone comes across this kind of scenario in your lab exam, please share us. I am not sure if Layer-2 floods need an additional policy. I appreciate your feedback!

The matter of saving time and keeping it simple. Long name may lead to typo.