- 积分
- 0
- 鸿鹄币
- 个
- 好评度
- 点
- 精华
- 注册时间
- 2010-9-23
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 阅读权限
- 0
- 听众
- 收听
游客
|
I tried my second attempt in Dubaï the June 2011, but I failed it.in attached the+ h1 e- L. M. y+ ?( y4 |
topology of the troubleshooting section/ f8 P/ K( _6 k; n) w
My configuration section(K1) was successful, but I failed troubleshooting section (68%).# Q3 N$ t3 m5 _7 e
Below the kind of questions I got in troubleshooting section :
$ n/ Y+ D* |6 P& H2 W1- BGP peering issue. the question also said that you should establish the peering int the safest
: @9 T4 Y9 k9 R( w. D: X% Gway.
% l. j! o& ^: tWhen I check the config, I see that there is "neighbor xxxx password cisco".
8 E& o( H+ J( C8 rI did " no neighbor xxxx password cisco", and then "neighbor xxxx password cisco" on each peer,: R5 d$ t7 D. L ?; ]! k5 E
and the peering comes up.
5 ]0 F) G. \8 r( f: i' @+ nAbout the safest way, the use the "service password-encryption" command on each peer
: l8 y5 ?( e* F) w2- reachibility issue: PC1 in one AS(AS 300) cannot ping PC2 in another AS (AS 100)! g/ O4 K9 u/ i5 T6 I, ]3 V. }
I see that the router connected to PC1 do not have the route to PC2 , because there is already AS
! O) x* ]5 o3 J, S$ i300
9 ?( y% h) H$ l1 C; k4 lin the as-path to reach PC1.
0 j- o4 H5 j5 Ito solve it, I modify the route-map on the router (on router on the path between the two PCs) on
9 P9 x% K6 L8 Y# u, n1 e7 ywhich the as-pas preprend is configured.. ~" A/ O r. y( o" P
I just remove AS 300 in the as-path prepend command, and it worked.
9 _. |6 W3 |( @& t; ^, w: t3- OSPF neighbor issue : R13 and R15 cannot establish ospf neighboring with R14.
9 c2 a% i6 h' `- Ron R14, I see that the serial interface is configured as DCE, not DTE; also the lmi-type was ansi.
/ m" w$ \, ^! i3 e6 z* II changed the interface to DTE and the lmi-type to cisco.
4 j, W4 z* R8 _7 p4 M4 |4 ^4 `4- Load-balancing issue in EIGRP domain: there was on router with "bandwidth 1000" configured0 O9 y/ |! i/ U+ w/ M
on and interface, Z( G7 v0 E* Q/ \& a4 O( r% l
and another router configured with "delay 120". I delete these two commands, and I saw the two% V5 ?% G! u# c1 o5 d
paths in the routing table! r8 b2 ]* M+ o6 I
5- Reachibility issue between two PCs accross OSPF domain : here the problem was an virtual-link% G- ~4 E2 \4 X9 s+ Z0 G
down, because of a network type mismatch6 l0 Z: G: L3 {, L& r4 a
(between R16 and R17). I remove the network type pont-to-multipoint on R17 Ethernet
8 G, D( ] w9 Y, tinterfaces connecting R16, and it worked.9 I! a" ~& ~( u- l* q! V9 X- V2 M
6- reachibility issue :there was a redistribution problem, missing default-metric when8 z7 {$ y4 t6 _
redistributing ospf in eigrp5 \3 e" D( ~/ @& T
7- SNMP issue: failed to send link-status traps. I used these two commands:
6 o/ K; X$ N( @8 C2 @4 U(conf-if)#snmp trap link-status)
4 m+ E+ m" |$ n k(config)#snmp-server trap-source loopback 0# m3 `2 `& P8 S) N+ @
8- Multicast issue (autorp): some routers (R11) are not able to get by autorp the addres of the rp
2 T9 Q5 w1 i6 `# A6 B# M$ }3 v9 d(R3).: Q, x- t) ?8 U5 p# V& P$ I( n
I did not resolved this issue.+ A" S4 ?# D- r) _1 u) V8 t
There was an access-list in R3 with the wrong multicast-group. I changed the address from6 U8 c9 v8 @! Z4 e- X+ n
224.1.1.2 (wrong address)to 224.1.1.1 (right address)
2 q: t9 Y/ P9 L$ S2 y9 T0 c6 S) zAfter that, R5 get the address of the RP, but not R9 nor R11. the PIM neighbor relationship was
/ R$ U2 ~4 J/ l+ NOK between these router.* {' |1 V0 N* l, x& u
the "ip pim sparse-dense-mode " was configured on all interfaces between R3 and R11.& S% V! x6 w0 |" p; j9 F/ H
9- Control-plane Policing issue. R9 loopback cannot telnet R10 loopback. there was many+ v4 ?% V3 A# n; c1 L
restrictions on this question like:
& }( z V8 z; U P: w-don't remove any configuration, don't remove any access-list, don't delete any line
- ~3 Y: [/ R; K# m3 M6 v4 Y1 Zconfiguration.But you can create your access-list8 X% l% ~, U/ \
When I check R9, I see that there is a CoPP , with a class-map (TELNET) which deny all telnet( C- K2 L6 n3 W6 C% M* V
traffic.+ t- j( J5 ]; p! J
below what I did:. e& N: I$ ]% I t; A- h; b
- create an access-list : access-list 101 permit tcp host R9_lo0 hos R10_lo0 eq telnet
* ^) B# J F$ q/ ]* _$ K+ V) X. P- create a class-map which matches the new access-list :
7 s, t6 ^$ ~4 b5 e, Pclass-map ACCESS
. }1 k# ]0 L: j8 O0 ?" J1 umatch ip address 101
7 c4 B* q4 l- a* ~- modify the policy-map like this :# s8 B! x& o2 i
policy-map R10_POLICY' f- S/ |3 c- {1 R& W
no class TELNET. n% I* j6 Y' B
class ACCESS3 K* @; N1 [. m, ^. m0 O, Z
class TELNET/ B7 t0 N- O* l
there was also "transport input none" in line vty of R9. I configured "transport input telnet" , and! V/ Q3 \3 m& o" A2 E* J
it worked: E' A' {7 |* f# Y3 u; d
10- tunnel issue between R5 and R13: tunnel is flapping.I used the debug tunnel and I see a- `$ K% I% ?7 u" f
recursive routing issue.; U3 C" B2 o* A# d$ ~0 {
After that, I check the routing table and the config of each router .We have the configuration- h9 T. C3 i0 t1 B t3 X( f$ w
below:! C# }. T6 _- a0 o2 \' R
R5
' I0 O3 B! }" w; \ C: @4 nint tunnel0$ B/ r9 B) l) \3 U) C
ip address 135.0.0.5 255.255.255.0/ {2 T, Y5 K W: P$ D- b6 a
tunnel source R5_lo0# f% ]/ _* u+ U5 F5 ]
tunnel destination R13_lo0; J9 O, w) ?3 T" t5 |& j
ip route 135.0.0.13 255.255.255.0 tunnel0# S, o0 m2 J( e; F) O2 Q
R13
4 G1 ~) `3 G+ \( K! wint tunnel0
& Y' D8 c% n# Z- jip address 135.0.0.13 255.255.255.0
. I5 E5 f" [& c: E+ T0 W! ~1 Ktunnel source R5_lo0- A/ C' t0 U2 O5 k
tunnel destination R13_lo0+ T7 X3 Q) d) B. |1 x
ip route 135.0.0.5 255.255.255.0 tunnel0
1 Q5 H; l; }$ p8 p B2 Keach router learn the loopback of the other by ospf. I delete the static route in each router, and it
3 b; h, [: ^8 `7 Lworked.
- c- [9 U+ J6 QI was sure that I will pass the troubleshooting sestion, but no luck.* n1 O9 T* m, u' |+ d5 k8 R5 n
At the break, when we discuss with the proctor, he said that there is only one way to solve each0 r; A* M" ?1 Z: l0 F9 V6 Z
issue in troubleshooting section.2 S9 i4 G6 I6 s3 C9 V, Y
Also, I see that there is a lot of restrictions on each ticket, so be very careful about that.$ V$ ~% N; d( o5 Z9 ]
I also see that Cisco can smoothly modify each question by adding restrictions, so two guys can
, W/ T! S8 X4 a: U4 Ihave the same topology, apparently4 F/ @) j+ g2 v
the same kind of questions, but different way to solve these tickets because of restrictions.3 r0 J/ I" |. b. {: e
When I see my troubleshooting score (68%) , I'm sure that my tickets 2,3,4,5,6,7 was good. I'm
j7 h1 D% s' `1 o0 d l. dnot sure about the other.
; f* x2 y- H# G8 U7 J) Z- [I want to share this experience with you because I think we can all get this CCIE number.
. W4 Y3 M' a3 k0 w) a' Y6 kplease , if somebody in the forum get the same tickets and pass this section, please share with4 a+ @) o) b! F! j" n. Z: V( S
me your answer.2 L; A- \+ B! ^
I don't want to make the CCIE exam all my life. I want to make my third and last attempt next
4 ]' A/ l& d0 t: \, F6 Lmonth. |
|