DOO 1.4

[Dunkle]

Does anyone have the updated requirements for section 1.4 on DOO? The existing Seventh release is close but missing several requirements on this task. 

[briansmith41]

If I recall correct, it's basically identical to the v1.0 of task 1.4 + the addition of area 1 at HQ + area 1 summarization + ospf traffic engineering. Were you just looking for specifics on that?

[there]

Hy there

 

i realised this with an summary router on the primary router and on the secondary i configure area 1 range 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 cost 100.

Is this the right config what they wants to see? Or how would you configure this part

BR

Edited August 17, 2022 by there

[CCIEstudent]

Yes it is, 

[jeytop]

do you use virtual link or ospf multiarea?

[there]

No

How would you confiugre this with mulitarea or virtual link?

[jeytop]

101 and 102

int r vlan 2000-2001

ip ospf 1 area 1

ip ospf netw point-to-point

ip ospf multi 0

102

int e0/2 (interface to dc)

ip ospf cost 200

int r vlan 2000-2001

ip ospf cost 200

router ospf 1

area 1 range 10.1.0.0 255.255.0 cost 200

 

with this config i'm prefering go to 101 instead to 202. And also, 202 is prefering go to 201 instead  to 102.

 

 

 

 

[kasmlz23]

may  i request the latest worklab that you are referring for the EI, thanks in advance.

[there]

but isnt it in the prerequesits, that the only configuration you are allowed to do is on the router config, not on the interfeace?

 

 

[Himura]

On 6/26/2022 at 4:22 PM, briansmith41 said:

If I recall correct, it's basically identical to the v1.0 of task 1.4 + the addition of area 1 at HQ + area 1 summarization + ospf traffic engineering. Were you just looking for specifics on that?

 Hi @briansmith41,
Could you please tell us a little more ??  I have used an old wb.


Does it mean that All HQ will be now a NonBackbone area ??
In those ABR (101/102) will be a summarization ??  both or just one is the summ??
TrafficEngineering to know wich link the traffic will go ??


Regards.
 

[Himura]

On 8/25/2022 at 12:19 AM, there said:

but isnt it in the prerequesits, that the only configuration you are allowed to do is on the router config, not on the interfeace?

 

 

Hi,

In that case, the best option is to do a VirtLik between 101-102  , in that moment both will be on A_0

By the way @jeytop , is there any  restrictions about neighbor between 101-102 with SVI_2k and 2K1  ??


Regards,

[there]

so lets recap the config

config the key chain on sw 101-102 and  sw201 and 202, also the ip os authentication and bfd.

on sw 201 and 202 on router os 1 - no passive-interfa ....

on 101 and 102

int ra vlan 2000-2001

ip ospf 1 area 1

on sw 101 router os pf 1 summary 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0

and area 1 virtual-link 10.1.255.102

on sw 102 router ospf 1 area 1 rang 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 cost 200

and area 1 virtual-link 10.1.255.101

 

the other interfaces stays in area 0, so we have the config hq area 0 to transit area 1 to dc which has also area 0

 

am i right?

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by there

[CCIEval23]

only way i've got this to work is by peering SW101&SW102 in area 0 via the VL2000 interfaces,   or by creating a virtual link between them.     Not sure on the restrictions on the task, haven't seen any workbook from 2022 so just going on memory.

 

 

[jeytop]

On 8/27/2022 at 6:57 AM, CCIEval23 said:

only way i've got this to work is by peering SW101&SW102 in area 0 via the VL2000 interfaces,   or by creating a virtual link between them.     Not sure on the restrictions on the task, haven't seen any workbook from 2022 so just going on memory.

 

 

Sure, i see the some options for this task. Thanks

[jeytop]

On 8/26/2022 at 3:06 AM, Himura said:

Hi,

In that case, the best option is to do a VirtLik between 101-102  , in that moment both will be on A_0

By the way @jeytop , is there any  restrictions about neighbor between 101-102 with SVI_2k and 2K1  ??


Regards,

Hi, i'm not sure if there some restriction.

[Himura]

15 hours ago, jeytop said:

Hi, i'm not sure if there some restriction.

 Hi @jeytop,  That task has a restriction , because they used to put some tricky to make you fail in exam. Like > User want to see the route as  O N1, in that case will be NSSA.... things like that... With that in mind the exam can be cracked to pass it at first attempt.

It`s my way to see it...   If anyone have something with these new task, please Share it.

[pipe]

Guys anyone have an update on this task?

From posts in this thread I understand that HQ is now configured as Area 1, but what about the links connecting HQ to DC? Are these links in Area 0 or 1?

 

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by pipe

[mmasohel]

vlan 0 between the links connecting HQ to DC - sw101 and sw201, sw102 and sw202

[jonny18]

Have attended the lab recently and as per the task is  the wording is simple like setup hq in ospf area 1 and dc in area 0 make sure only the summary route 10.x.x.x/16 is seen on DC. i don't remember seeing any restrictions for this.  So for hq to be in area 1 all l3 ospf devices need to be in area 1 (sw01,sw02,R12,R11) , the dc devices dont change because they already are in area 0, however the sw201,202 link interfaces can change to area 1, if all devices on hq are changed to area 1 dc will receive all the routes as inter-area routes, and sw01 and sw02 become abr'sa and route sumarization can be done there with area 1 range x.x.x.x

A virtual-link doesn't feel correct because it is used when there are disjointed areas and in this is not the case. hq and dc area linked directly.

Edited October 5, 2022 by jonny18

[ShoIProute]

On 10/5/2022 at 2:07 PM, jonny18 said:

Have attended the lab recently and as per the task is  the wording is simple like setup hq in ospf area 1 and dc in area 0 make sure only the summary route 10.x.x.x/16 is seen on DC. i don't remember seeing any restrictions for this.  So for hq to be in area 1 all l3 ospf devices need to be in area 1 (sw01,sw02,R12,R11) , the dc devices dont change because they already are in area 0, however the sw201,202 link interfaces can change to area 1, if all devices on hq are changed to area 1 dc will receive all the routes as inter-area routes, and sw01 and sw02 become abr'sa and route sumarization can be done there with area 1 range x.x.x.x

A virtual-link doesn't feel correct because it is used when there are disjointed areas and in this is not the case. hq and dc area linked directly.

yeah that sounds about accurate. i agree, u dont need a virtual-link since your not trying to join two backbone areas together and hq (area 1) is directly connected to the backbone (dc - area 0) already. i dont think u need a multi-area adjacency either so it all boils down to whether the links between sw101-sw201 and sw102-sw202 should be in area 1 or area 0. i think the real question is...who/where should the ABRs be? there was a question in the design section where sw101 and sw102 being the ABRs for nssa area 1 (hq) was an option but i dont remember seeing anything about sw201 or sw202 in the dc. that might be a hint that sw101 and sw102 were meant to be ABRs for area 1. This way, those two can send a summary-route for 10.1.0.0/16 (sw102 with a worse metric) to the dc. it just seems kind of funny having sw201 and sw202 as ABRs (links in area0 and area1) in the dc.

What do u guys think?

[Siscco]

I think we have a choice here ,  either to make the interlink in Area 0 or Area 1.

"HQ should be in Area 1 and DC should be in Area 0" . 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Siscco

[jonny18]

Yeah agree it sounds funny, since as per the question sw201/202 should be in area 0 since they are in the DC, they technically are since only the up-link interfaces are in area 1 however there are not many more options for ABRs  that i can think of (perhaps sw101/102 can be abr's alternatively) , its possible this has some influence further down the exam, so labbing up both options i guess is the best

 

[ShoIProute]

On 12/15/2022 at 12:01 AM, Siscco said:

I think we have a choice here ,  either to make the interlink in Area 0 or Area 1.

"HQ should be in Area 1 and DC should be in Area 0" . 

It could be. could be that their giving us a choice because they really are not specific on which area the uplink should be in

 

10 hours ago, jonny18 said:

Yeah agree it sounds funny, since as per the question sw201/202 should be in area 0 since they are in the DC, they technically are since only the up-link interfaces are in area 1 however there are not many more options for ABRs  that i can think of (perhaps sw101/102 can be abr's alternatively) , its possible this has some influence further down the exam, so labbing up both options i guess is the best

 

yeah i agree since sw201/202 are in the DC it would make more sense that they should be in area 0. in the exam the uplinks are actually already in area 0 for both HQ and DC. so that gives you the option of which devices should be the ABRs. U know what i think i answered my own question because it also says  in that same task: "all DC OSPF speakers must see 10.1.0.0/16 for any HQ subnets". i think that makes it clear that sw101/102 should be the ABRs and originate a type3 summary route for 10.1.0.0/16 to sw201/202. because if u make sw201/202 the ABRs then they would have the uplinks in area 1 and be able to see all of the specific routes from HQ.

at least thats how i'm looking at it for now. What do u guys think?

Edited December 16, 2022 by ShoIProute

[Siscco]

On 12/16/2022 at 8:43 AM, ShoIProute said:

It could be. could be that their giving us a choice because they really are not specific on which area the uplink should be in

 

yeah i agree since sw201/202 are in the DC it would make more sense that they should be in area 0. in the exam the uplinks are actually already in area 0 for both HQ and DC. so that gives you the option of which devices should be the ABRs. U know what i think i answered my own question because it also says  in that same task: "all DC OSPF speakers must see 10.1.0.0/16 for any HQ subnets". i think that makes it clear that sw101/102 should be the ABRs and originate a type3 summary route for 10.1.0.0/16 to sw201/202. because if u make sw201/202 the ABRs then they would have the uplinks in area 1 and be able to see all of the specific routes from HQ.

at least thats how i'm looking at it for now. What do u guys think?

Makes sense!!

[jonny18]

On 12/16/2022 at 6:43 AM, ShoIProute said:

It could be. could be that their giving us a choice because they really are not specific on which area the uplink should be in

 

yeah i agree since sw201/202 are in the DC it would make more sense that they should be in area 0. in the exam the uplinks are actually already in area 0 for both HQ and DC. so that gives you the option of which devices should be the ABRs. U know what i think i answered my own question because it also says  in that same task: "all DC OSPF speakers must see 10.1.0.0/16 for any HQ subnets". i think that makes it clear that sw101/102 should be the ABRs and originate a type3 summary route for 10.1.0.0/16 to sw201/202. because if u make sw201/202 the ABRs then they would have the uplinks in area 1 and be able to see all of the specific routes from HQ.

at least thats how i'm looking at it for now. What do u guys think?

Yes, was not thinking about this properly also. So all ospf speaking devices on HQ (sw101,102,r11,r12) should switch to area 1 with the exception of the uplinks to DC on sw101/102 eth0/2 interfaces which will be on area 0, then in the ospf process of sw101/102 area range 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 will summarize the HQ routes towards DC, tested this and seems connectivty is not lost from any of the branch sites towards 10.1.x.x