In the explanations they give some solutions to stop split horizon from causing problems but wouldn't a default route from the "spokes" to the central router solve this problem easiest?

This should work since R1 was receiving updates from both R2 and R3, it just wasn't propagating them.

Hello,

IGMP is a communications protocol.  It is not a routing protocol.  You are also missing one correct answer which is  IGMP snooping runs on Layer 3 routers.  This is indeed correct.  See link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Gr...t_Protocol

25. (QID:NG16) Which three statements are true about the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP)? (Choose three)

IGMP is used to register individual hosts with a multicast group.
IGMP is a multicast routing protocol that makes packet-forwarding decisions independent of other routing protocols such as EIGRP.
IGMP version 3 enables a multicast receiving host to specify to the router which sources it should forward traffic from.
IGMP messages are IP datagrams with a protocol value of 2, destination address of 224.0.0.2, and a TTL value of 1.
There are three IGMP modes: dense mode, sparse mode, and sparse-dense mode.
IGMP snooping runs on Layer 3 routers.

Correct Answer:

IGMP is a multicast routing protocol that makes packet-forwarding decisions independent of other routing protocols such as EIGRP.
IGMP is used to register individual hosts with a multicast group.
IGMP version 3 enables a multicast receiving host to specify to the router which sources it should forward traffic from.

I have read Lamle's and Odom's books.  Used how2pass to make sure I understood the questions and what the reasoning behind the answers. 

This was my second attempt and it was definately worth the money. 

BTW if you are looking for the recently added labs just google new ccna questions.

I passed today with a score of 809.  One thing that threw me that there were 3 router sims.  One EIGRP route summarization sim, and OSPF summarization sim and another sim dealing with ospf and ipv6 (that one really threw me.  Just about all the question were from this site.  The weird thing (besides 3 router sims! I thought there would only be one) was that there was a question about fiber cabling standards and one about vlans.  Both those questions I feel should be on other cert tests like the BCMSN.  Also there were no drag and drop questions at all.  I hammered those like all the other questions.  I dont understand why there were no drag and drops on my test.  But I am very happy to pass.   

Hello,

How is it that a OSPF router can enter into a full adjacency with another router if LSAs are NOT received.  I am not saying that you are wrong.  I could imagine that perhaps static neighbor statements were entered in and this would produce a full adjacency.  Obviously they are using some sort of NBMA mode over perhaps frame relay?  Just curious thanks.

15. (QID:N2C110) View the exhibit. Based on the command output, what is one reason why no routes from the OSPF neighbor 192.168.0.5 are installed in the IP routing table?

R3 will only install routes from the neighbor with the lowest priority (Pri). If routes have the same priority, routes from the neighbor with the lowest IP address are used.
Routes from backup designated routers are never installed in the IP routing table.
192.168.0.5 is a redundant link to 192.168.0.4, and load balancing is not enabled.
R3 did not receive any LSAs from 192.168.0.5.

Correct Answer: R3 did not receive any LSAs from 192.168.0.5.

Hello,

The following I believe should solve this problem:
When redistributing EIGRP into OSPF, set the external metric type to type E1.

Any chance you can confirm in a lab environment that this is not true?

14. (QID:NE100) View the exhibit. Router B and router C are performing mutual redistribution between OSPF and EIGRP, and their default metrics are configured the same. Router D has equal cost paths to networks where both paths are not really equal cost.

For example, network 172.16.54.0 shows equal cost through both router B and router C, though in reality the cost is greater using router C. Other routers, though not shown, are connected to the 172.16.54.0 and 172.16.55.0 networks, and the same issues exist to those routers and the networks connected to them.

What can be done so that data will be routed along the most optimal path in the network?

When redistributing EIGRP into OSPF, set the external metric type to type E1.
Adjust the default metrics in router B and router C so that the values are different in each router.
Set the maximum number of equal cost paths to 1 in all routers.
None of these solutions will fix the problem. Migrate to a single dynamic routing protocol.

Correct Answer: None of these solutions will fix the problem. Migrate to a single dynamic routing protocol
Redistribute connected interfaces on router B and router C.

Hello,

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EIGRP#Feasi..._Condition as the correct answer is
The advertised distance of the neighbor must be less than the feasible distance of the current successor.

13. (QID:NB103) Which condition must be satisfied before an EIGRP neighbor can be considered a feasible successor?

The advertised distance of the neighbor must be equal to the feasible distance of the current successor.
The advertised distance of the neighbor must be less than or equal to the feasible distance of the current successor.
The advertised distance of the neighbor must be less than the feasible distance of the current successor.
The advertised distance of the neighbor must be greater than or equal to the feasible distance of the current successor.
The advertised distance of the neighbor must be greater than the feasible distance of the current successor.

Correct Answer: The advertised distance of the neighbor must be less than or equal to the feasible distance of the current successor.

Hello,

After looking at this question I think that perhaps the answer should include the network with the 20% load rather than the 45% load.  This is why I feel it should be so:

The neighbor sending the 65% inbound load needs to be brought down by 20% and the neighbor with the 20% load needs to have his load increased by 20%.  Right now hosts attempting to reach either network 10.10.1.32 or 10.10.1.48 are preferring the 65% load path through network 192.168.20.x rather than the 20% load path through network 192.168.30.x .  We need to tell these hosts that the cost to reach this path is higher over the 65% link than over the 20% link.  Your proposed solution would re balance traffic as 65% 20% with the load on the links reversed.

So the answer should include this statement:
access-list 50 permit 10.10.1.32 0.0.0.240

rather than the following statement which you indicate as correct:
access-list 50 permit 10.10.1.16 0.0.0.240

Question with your proposed solution below

23. (QID:NE115) View the exhibit. Currently the two eBGP links between AS100 and AS200 have an average inbound load of 65% and 20% respectively. After further investigation, traffic to 10.10.1.16/28 accounts for 45%, and traffic to 10.10.1.32/28 and to 10.10.1.48/28 each account for 20% of the inbound load. The BGP attributes are currently set at their default values in both autonomous systems.

If you want to influence how AS200 sends traffic to AS100, which eBGP configurations would you configure in AS100 to influence AS200 to use the eBGP links more evenly? (Choose two.)

route-map as_50 permit 10
match ip address 50
set metric 150
access-list 50 permit 10.10.1.16 0.0.0.240

neighbor 192.168.30.2 route-map as_50 out

neighbor 192.168.20.2 route-map as_50 out

route-map as_50 permit 10
match ip address 50
set metric 150
access-list 50 permit 10.10.1.32 0.0.0.240

Correct Answer:
route-map as_50 permit 10
match ip address 50
set metric 150
access-list 50 permit 10.10.1.16 0.0.0.240

neighbor 192.168.20.2 route-map as_50 out

Ok I am sorry but this makes no sense to me.  I actually would have chosen the two ip prefix-lists just out of process of elimination

172.16.x.x network = RIPv2 routes
10.x.x.x network = OSPF routes

first off the access-list 15 statement is a denial and it is attached to a route-map that is also a denial statement.  Followed by permit any statements.  Which means that you are denying the access-list from being denied but permitting all other traffic.  You can do that for sure but it won't accomplish any filtering.  So because of that I crossed it off the list.

access-list 15 deny 10.1.1.0 0.0.0.63
access-list 15 permit any
route-map redis-rip deny 10
match ip address 15
route-map redis-rip permit 20
router ospf 100
redistribute rip route-map redis-rip subnets

Second of all access-list 40 statement is a denial of OSPF routes and that denial statement is incorporated into the RIP process denying these routes from being advertised out by rip.  So uh... that defeats the purpose.  Its like saying RIP, you see these OSPF routes that you are trying to redistribute... well don't advertise them.

Question and answer below:
13. (QID:NE117) View the exhibit. A new TAC engineer comes to you for advice. The engineer wants  to configure RIPv2-OSPF two-way redistribution while avoiding routing loops. Which two additions to the router B1 configuration should the engineer make?

access-list 40 deny 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.255
access-list 40 permit any
router rip
redistribute ospf 100 metric 5
distribute-list 40 out ospf 100

ip prefix-list rip-to-ospf permit 10.1.1.8/25 ge 26 le 28
route-map redis-rip deny 20
match ip address prefix-list rip-to-ospf
router ospf 100
redistribute rip route-map redis-rip subnets

access-list 15 deny 10.1.1.0 0.0.0.63
access-list 15 permit any
route-map redis-rip deny 10
match ip address 15
route-map redis-rip permit 20
router ospf 100
redistribute rip route-map redis-rip subnets

ip prefix-list rip_routes permit 172.16.1.16/25 ge 26 le 28
route-map redis-ospf deny 10
match ip address prefix-list rip_routes
router rip
redistribute ospf 10 route-map redis-ospf subnets

Correct Answer:
access-list 40 deny 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.255
access-list 40 permit any
router rip
redistribute ospf 100 metric 5
distribute-list 40 out ospf 100

access-list 15 deny 10.1.1.0 0.0.0.63
access-list 15 permit any
route-map redis-rip deny 10
match ip address 15
route-map redis-rip permit 20
router ospf 100
redistribute rip route-map redis-rip subnets

The correct answer is supposed to be:
Correct Answer: RT3 has an IGP metric of 782 to reach 192.168.1.1

This answer makes no sense to me... perhaps you can help. 

In the routing table it states:

202.176.56.0 /24 [200/1782] via 192.168.1.1
200 = AD of IBGP
1782 = metric of IBGP correct?  Why is the answer not
RT3 has an IGP metric of 1782 to reach 202.176.56.0/24.

22. (QID:NF55) View the exhibit. Router RT3 discovers network 202.176.56.0 via BGP. Which one of these statements is true?

RT3 has an IGP metric of 1782 to reach 202.176.56.0/24.
RT3 has an IGP metric of 782 to reach 192.168.1.1.
RT3 has a BGP metric of 782 to reach 192.168.1.1.
RT1 advertised network 202.176.50.0/24 with a metric of 1000.
RT1 advertised network 202.176.50.0/24 with a metric of 782.
RT3 is directly connected to RT1 using subnet 192.168.1.0.

Correct Answer: RT3 has an IGP metric of 782 to reach 192.168.1.1