IPexpert Volume 2 Section 5 Review

I finished this lab in under 5 hours. I quickly ran through the PG and got an estimated score of 87 give or take a few tasks. There were only couple tough ones, but other than that it was smooth sailing. There was interesting igmp snooping task which I got right thanks to the Doc CD.

Here is a summary of the mistakes:

-4 task 1.2. Didn't configure vlan 100 as native vlan. Didn.t configure flex-link. Completely forgot about the native vlan, while the flex-link configuration I didn't pick up on. The task said to make sure "if one link fails, the other will start working, but not until then." I figured this was juts normal STP, but it wasn't.

-3 task 2.2. R9-R6 addresses were off. R6 and R9 have 2 back-to-back links. Question said to use the address space of a 172.16.69.0/30. I assigned the same addresses to both links. R6 used .1 on both interfaces, R9 used .2 on both interfaces. This worked perfectly because WAN interfaces can overlap. However the PG wanted you to split up the /30 into two sets of /31 subnets. The question was very unclear, I would have asked proctor.

-3 task 5.2. Didn't use static rp on R7. R8 was supposed to use R7 as the RP (overriding auto-rp). I used a static rp-address on R8 but didn't do the same on R7. I was really unsure about what to do on R7, I thought R7 was supposed to use R5 as the RP, so I didn't think we should have configured R7 that way. But that's the only to make R7 the RP for R8.

-3 task 8.1. I used the wrong burst sizes, the task said 16K which I thought was bits, the command wants bytes so I put 2000. Should have been 16000. I hate these types of questions...

These are some alternate solutions that I used, that differed from the PG:

3.3 I used eigrp stub with default settings, PG used "eigrp stub connected"
4.2 I used a supress-map instead of community attribute to prevent specific routes from being advertised.
6.2 I changed sdm to routing extended-match, PG just had extended match. This was for wccp
to be enabled on a switch.
8.4 I used a class-map that macthes icmp and packet length, then used a policy-map to drop it. The PG use PBR which is what my first thought was.