[j-nsp] EBGP policy JNCIP-M, page 553 3-17-09-confirmed

[Harry Reynolds]

Yeah, I think this is a typo. To some degree I was trying to
differentiate between transit, peering, and customer EBGP. Based on how
I could fix w/minimal changes I'd probably re-word the task to:

"Do not accept any default routes or RFC 1918 routes from *Customer*
EBGP peers"

I'm adding to my list of things that are broken.

Thanks



-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Aamir Saleem
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:10 AM
To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: [j-nsp] EBGP policy JNCIP-M

Hi All,

I was working on EBGP case study from JNCIP-M study guide (by Harry
Reynolds). On page 553 from one of the requirement is to "Do not accept
any default routes or RFC 1918 routes from EBGP peers". On router R1, R4
and R7 default route is rejected in import policy but on router R3 and
R6 default route is not rejected in the import policy, though damping
policy on import is also configured for R3 and R6 router.

My question is this: why default route is not being rejected explicity
for
R3 and R6 on import policy??

Is this a mistake or i did't understand this import policy correctly??

Regards.

Aamir
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp