This is my feedback. One Good turn they say deserves another and I think, it behoves on me to do just that, got TS1/H3+/H2+.
Diag
Got H3+
1. used bootp and my sequence number was 114. the rest were same as WB
2. TCL was where Cisco went bananas. in my case, the tcp flow did not show anywhere "sudo poweroff" or any of the commands that we are familiar with. In my case, it was "r"
TS1
Pretty easy and finished that within an hour but had to go over it three times just to be sure I was on the right path because in some tickets, the number of faults I resolved to get the tickets working were less than what Cisco said there were. for example, Cisco said "This ticket involves two (2) separate faults" and yet, I got it resolved with just one fault. In some cases, the resolution of one ticket lead me into automatically getting the other done if you know what I mean.
For example, when I finished with ticket 9, ticket 10 worked "automagically" for me and I didn't have to do anything there. I guess the solution Cisco envisaged was just to remove the secondary IP address on R24.
Other few nuances were also where the testing of the solution was required. For example, Cisco Required ping to internet from R105 instead of R106.
CFG
1. in my case, I got H2+ CFG and section 1.1 for example did not require "snmp-server enable traps syslog"
2.There was no ospf preconfiguration on DC (AS 65002) devices and Cisco requested not to use the "network" command anywhere in the ospf configuration in the DC.
3. Watch the vrf name: it was Corp instead of CORP in the Branch Network.
4. vrfs did not have RD preconfigured.
5. Headquarters and Main office had ospf and bgp pre-configured but needed to be tweaked to get the desired output requested by Cisco. Same with Jacobs Office network
6. Jacobs Core Network PE routers didn't have vrf configured at all.
7. Jacob CE routers (R55/56) had a bare BGP configuration. no prefix-list , no route-map for redistribution and redistribution between the EIGRP and BGP completely not pre-configured. had to configure all of that.
8. Jamesons CE routers needed to allow AS in and not PE routers overriding the AS.
9. section 4.1 actually required the use of only "permit" in solution
All in all,Combat and CC Dreamer deserve commendations and I dedicate my number to them. If you understand the topologies and the traffic flow coupled with the WBs,you are good to go.
Thanks everyone.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by ccierscisco
