As many of you already know I've been teaching our brand new Routing and Switching CCIE bootcamps for the past couple months. I've recently restructured the bootcamp in that mock labs are not done during the second week to allow for expanded coverage of the CCIE blueprint topics. The mock labs are now done after the bootcamp and I give every student 1500 tokens to schedule them. The new structure allows for roughly 100+ hours of hands-on demonstration using my own rack over the course of the... Read More
The whole INE team is happy to congratulate Rock Bassole, CCIE #28657! It was my personal pleasure to meet Rock in our CCIE R&S Bootcamps, and I'm glad to see him getting the so well-deserved CCIE title! Keep up the good work, Rock! Read More
I enjoyed Petr's article regarding explicit next hop.  It reminded me of a scenario where a redistributed route, going into OSPF conditionally worked, depending on which reachable next hop was used. Here is the topology for the scenario: Here is the relevant (and working :)) information for R1. Read More
Last week we wrapped up the MPLS bootcamp, and it was a blast!   A big shout out to all the students who attended,  as well as to many of the INE staff who stopped by (you know who you are :)).    Thank you all. Here is the topology we used for the class, as we built the network, step by step. The class was organized and delivered in 30 specific lessons. Here is the "overview" slide from class: Read More
Time is a valuable resource in the lab.   In a lab task, if asked to configure a policy-map named "BOB", it doesn't get the same point value if we happen to accidentally name it "bob", especially  if they are looking to see if you configured what they asked for. The challenge is, that when reviewing a lab task, and we discover that we need to change a name, it could be a hassle, as we need to remove the policy-map, recreate the policy map, and then put it in place again. So if you are down to... Read More
Can you solve this puzzle? R2, R3 and R4 create the service provider network, with MPLS on all three routers, and iBGP at the PE routers.  R1 and R5 are the CE routers. R2, prefers the BGP next hop of for network (R5 loopback). R4, at is an iBGP neighbor. R2#show ip route vrf v | inc B [200/409600] via, 00:06:47 Is R2 preferring an iBGP learned route, which has an AD of 200, over a EIGRP route, which would have an AD of 90? Can you identify why... Read More
Are you ready to explore the following? Read More
"Why doesn't this PING work!?!" Here is a simple 3 router configuration, well at least it is simple on 2 of the 3 routers. R1 and R3 are configured quite traditionally, but R2 is a bit more involved. Here is the diagram. Here are the details. R2 is using a VRF which includes both LAN interfaces. R2 is also acting as a Zone Based Firewall in transparent mode, allowing all ICMP traffic in both directions, as well as SSH from the inside to the outside networks. R2 has a bridged virtual interface... Read More
Summer was in full swing, and it was over 105 degrees Fahrenheit outside.   Bob was told it was a "dry heat", but he thought "so is my oven".  Needless to say, Bob was glad to be in the data center, where the temperature and humidity controls kept it very cold.   He had been asked to setup up a basic route-map with BGP, and here is the diagram he worked from. The goal, was to modify BGP,  so that all traffic going towards the network (which is sourced from AS1), traveling either from or... Read More
It isn't my fault, they configured it that way before I got here! That was the entry level technician's story Monday morning, and he was sticking to it.  :) Here is the rest of the story.   Over the weekend, some testing had been done regarding a proposed BGP configuration.   The objective was simple, R1 and R3 needed to ping each others loobacks at and respectively, with those 2 networks, being carried by BGP.  R2 is performing NAT.    The topology diagram looks like this: The... Read More

Subscribe to INE Blog Updates

New Blog Posts!