standards |
Aftersleep Books
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Routing TCP IP Volume IThe following report compares books using the SERCount Rating (base on the result count from the search engine). |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aftersleep Books - 2005-06-20 07:00:00 | © Copyright 2004 - www.aftersleep.com () | sitemap | top |
Additional Comments:
I did note the following errors in the books print listed by chapter:
Chapter 5
Page 193, Paragraph 1, Sentence 4 and 5
The statement with regard to holddown timers and Routers running RIP routers is false. The statement read "If an advertised hop count is higher than the recorded hop count and the update was received was originated by the recorded next-hop router, the route will be marked as unreachable for a specified holddown period. If at the end of that time the same neighbor is still advertising the higher hop count, the new metric will be accepted". The reason this is wrong is because, a router that receives a route with a higher metric than the currently recorded metric and the advertising router is also the recorded next-hop router, the router will immediately install the new metric. (lab tested).
Appendix F
Page 970, Chapter 7, Answer 1
The given answer is not completely correct as stated. First the answer states that the router labeled C on page 321 and who's configuration is on page 324 will interpret the RIPv2 routes 192.168.90.0/29 and 192.168.13.86/28 coming from routers A and B respectfully as 192.168.13.64/27 and discards them because this route is directly connected to one of router C's interfaces. This is incorrect first because the routes that will be advertised by routers A and B will be 192.168.13.80/29 and 192.168.13.80/28 respectfully not 192.168.13.86/28 and 192.168.90.0/29. Secondly because router C is configured with the default rip settings, which allows the router to advertise RIPv1 and receive RIPv1 and RIPv2, which will allow router C to correctly interpret the masks sent with the RIPv2 updates sent by routers A and B as such router C will have both (Lab Tested).
Appendix C, Chapter 11, Answer 1
The answer as stated is not completely correct. The answer states that in order to redistribute between the IGP domain and the RIPv1 domain the router labeled B should have its mask changed from /27 to /28. Although this facilitates the routes from the IGRP domain into the RIPv1 domain it does not completely facilitate the reverse. The reason for this is that when router B receives the RIPv1 updates from router C it interprets those routes to have a /28 mask due to the new mask on its E1 interface. This results in the IGRP domain believing that the subnets in the RIPv1 domain have only 14 hosts per subnet where as they really can have as may as 30 hosts. In example take the subnet 172.16.2.32/27 which possibly contains hosts 172.16.2.33 -62 in the RIP domain, when this route is redistributed into the IGRP domain it would be interpreted to only contain hosts 172.16.2.33-46. This would cause packets originating in the IGRP domain destined for the hosts numbered 172.16.2.47-62 to be returned unreachable by the routers in the IGRP domain without further configuration. i.e. static routes.