Cisco proposal 2 edits

Anonymous
timer Asked: Mar 5th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

My professor wants some more edit to this

I see in a couple of sections where you've made some improvements but not a significant amount. You've also not done anything to adjust for my feedback on item 10 which as I indicated is quite important. Please reach out if you want to discuss this in more detail.

3. Routing Protocol Choice: No change in this section, you have yet to choose and defend a specific routing protocol for use in Boston.

4. Peerlinks: Again, no significant change I can see that you've added information about CHAP and PPP but that isn't part of this assignment (yet) and not what I asked for in the last set of feedback.

5. Advertisements: No significant change in this section. Still looking for a decided protocol with network statements and peer advertisement authentication.

6. Summarization: Again, you've yet to choose and implement a routing protocol for Boston following the feedback I gave in the last submission.

7: Default Route: Half credit here, you've tried to get default routing going but you've used ASA syntax for the route command which wouldn't work on any of the Boston devices. I recommend trying another way

8. Topology: Good, you've provided the table that I'm looking for in element four but only included your new link. Giving you credit here for implementing and showing this recommendation.

9. Overall Formatting: No significant changes to the discussion sections,

10. Sources Cited: Per my feedback last time, I'm not sure how you're coming up with these commands but you have a lot of sources in these commands that are not in your works cited.

you started out strong with Worchester but missed Boston entirely. I've provided really detailed feedback below to help you get back on the right track. Pay close attention to my feedback on item number 10, do not use images of the configurations in your next submission please.

1. Worchester Subnet: Great, you have a well put together table and it includes all the required information from the assignment instructions.

2. Subnet Design: Awesome, this is a good design choice and you're right about why you might chose to go this way. Considering that you have access to the entire /16 you can easily use a /24 to break out the subnets. You might consider having the third octet match the VLAN number to make troubleshooting between layers two and three a bit easier.

3. Routing Protocol Choice: This section is interesting, I worry that you missed the point of the assignment for Boston. I'm looking here for you to chose an IGP solution and implement it. It seems like you have selected a bit of all three of the common IPv4 IGPs. For full credit, select one and justify your selection.

4. Peerlinks: In this section, I'm looking to see how you've documented your peerlinks. I'm not going to be particular about how you do this but I would need to see the addresses, subnet masks, and next hops of all three routers peer links in some easily understandable format.

5. Advertisements: I'm looking for two things in this section. I'm looking for you to provide correct network statements for each of the three Boston routers in your chosen IGP. I'm also looking for you to authenticate peer advertisements. Looking at your EIGRP section you've included the same network statement for all three routers which will ensure that traffic routes incorrectly for R2 and R3. Pay careful attention to the downstream networks on R2 and R3.

6. Summarization: I started to provide feedback on this above, but I'm looking here for you to correctly summarize each of the three Boston routers. R1 should be a summary of the entire /16 (which you got right) but R2 and R3 should summarize in such a way that it reflects the downstream networks only. Word of caution on using RIPv2, it is only a good choice in very specialized circumstances.

7: Default Route: In this section I'm interested in how you will route traffic outside of the network. For each of the three Boston routers, they should have a default route in their routing table. You can do this manually or using your IGP.

8. Topology: Half credit on this one, you've taken a stab at this with the packet tracer diagram of Worchester and part of Boston. For full credit show me both Boston and Worchester and focus on what topology improvements might be made to Boston to strengthen the network.

9. Overall Formatting: Half credit on this item. You have a reasonably professional look to the document but syntactically there are issues here. Try reading the document out loud or to another person and you'll see that conversationally it is difficult to understand your discussion sections. I'm not looking for you to be an English major on this but I'd like for the document to be easy to understand and comprehend when read.

10. Sources Cited: Half credit, you have followed IEEE styling in your works cited page and in the internal citations but you have a source 11 in the images, you never cite source 3, and your fourth source almost seems like a joke to make sure that I'm reading this thoroughly. Be extremely careful with these images, of the configurations. With the [11] I'm inclined to believe that you might have taken this from some other source material. Since you've not received any credit on these Boston routing sections I'm not going to make an issue of this but in your next submission please do not use images of the configurations.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Worchester Site Device and STP Configurations (Focus on the Worchester Site Only) Required Implementation: Subnet addressing to accommodate Worchester site Subnetting: Properly subnet addressing blocks to accommodate the site's VLAN sizes. You will not need to implement VLANs here; rather, you will create the correct sizing to properly accommodate the devices stated per the xACME educational topology. Carefully consider the challenges faced when structuring subnets too large and/or too small during your design. The starting Worchester site addressing range is 10.20.0.0 /16 (per the xACME educational topology diagram). Formatting per subnet should follow the format below and should be clearly stated and placed within a table. NetID mask/CIDR values broadcast usable range No additional device configurations required to complete Required Implementation: Implement a routing protocol to manage networks within the Boston site topology as well as default routes to exit non-Boston traffic. Summarization addresses should be stated per router in Boston’s topology. Consider redundancy upgrades as well and document per topology. Routing Protocol: Research the different routing protocol types (distance vector/link state/hybrid) and choose a routing protocol implement (OSPF, EIGRP, RIP). Justify your selection by defining its strengths and weaknesses. Define the proper addressing block to assign per point-to-point links and implement your solution per all three routers. Routing protocol should be set up in a way to advertise all IP subnets, WAN, and LAN interfaces on a router. Be sure to protect the advertisements of the routing tables as well. Summarization: Define the route summarization addresses for each Boston site router. These addresses will not be implemented on the routers, but they will be documented in your response. Each summarization address must be large enough to include all required subnets contained within the underlying site subnets. Default Route: Any traffic not matching internal networks will need to be routed outward. Implement default routes on the site routers to exit this traffic. Topology: Consider the potential challenges with the current Boston site topology (cabling and redundancy approach). If improvements are needed, update the topology and discuss and routing redundancy approaches you see fit. Please refer to the following configurations: BostonSiteRouter1 BostonSiteRouter2 BostonSiteRouter3 Worchester Subnetting Configurations and Boston Site Protocol, Route Summarization, and Topology Improvement Table of Contents Sites Details and Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 2 Worchester ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Boston Site ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Sites Solutions and Technologies .................................................................................................................. 3 Worchester Site Sub-netting ..................................................................................................................... 3 Boston Site Protocol.................................................................................................................................. 3 Boston Route summarization ................................................................................................................... 7 Sample configuration ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Boston Site Protocol Improvements ......................................................................................................... 9 Sample diagrams ........................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Bibliography ................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Sites Details and Challenges Both Worchester and Boston site has various networking challenges. In the following discussion, we outline some of the details about the two site, the various challenges associated with the sites and finally how to solve the problem. Worchester As described in the scenario provided about the Worchester area, the site has a massive area, including various departments and offices which requires to be appropriately configured. The challenge in the area is that the site requires a suitable network configuration to accommodate the site VLANs and all the devices. Also currently there are small devices, such includes one router which is not enough for the whole site, three switches among others. Plus, the current configurations, it’s true that the site needs massive improvement including configurations as outlined below, Boston Site As described in the scenario given, Boston area needs a protocol improvement to address the current network reduce which is being experienced and also to make it easier for the site administrator to be able to manage the whole site with ease. The implementation, in this case, would involve configuration among others as outlined below. Sites Solutions and Technologies This includes all the technologies and network-based solution that would be applied to both the Worchester Site about the sub-net configuration and also to the Boston site about the site protocol improvements. Worchester Site Sub-netting. To make it easier for the site administrators to manage the network infrastructure, we would be able to use subnet addressing technology to accommodate all the networking device on the existing and the improved VLANs. This would include restructuring of the existing subnets and VLANs into a range that is easy to manage, [1]. Some of the key consideration includes a good subnet address block that can accommodate the site’s VLAN sizes. The starting address range 10.20.0.0/16 Boston Site Routing Protocol At the Boston Site, the appropriate protocol configuration would be helpful to the site network administrator, as it would enable them to be able to monitor any network device within the new set up VLANs. To make this a reality we would implement Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP). OSPF among others within site. After the above implementation, we would be able to deal with low bandwidth, slow network problems among others. This would be done by configuring IGRP on each router within the Boston area. This would enable the Boston network to be well loaded and working as expected. The following configurations would be used, [2]. Peer links - Point to Point configuration For this to be configured as required, we would require to use 30 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CDIR) subnet, this allows two hosts on a subnet mask of 255.255.255.252 [5]. Sample configuration. Other sample configurations Boston Route summarization This would involve providing a summary of all the network resources, the subnet, and group addressing together in a way that would be simple to use; this would be by involving the use of shorter subnet masks. Simply this would involve designing and implementation of the smaller network into the more extensive network to reduce the size of the required network table. The following is a sample table and configuration of the same, [1]. Route Summarization Configurations Default Route This are the outbound network configuration, which need to be routed. The following configuration are some of the examples for the Default Route Configuration. Boston Site Protocol Improvements In this case, we would work to help reduce any network-related problems such as the network redundancy making the whole Boston site network reliable. This would be achieved by improving the existing protocols as outlined above, [2]. Network Router 2 10.10.255.244 /30 Router 3 10.10.255.244 /30 IP Address Netmask Interface 10.10.255.245 255.255.255.252 fa1/0 10.10.255.246 255.255.255.252 fa0/0 Topology [1] Cisco Engineers, "Cisco," Cisco press, 10 8 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/routing-information-protocol-rip/13788-3.html. [Accessed 18 1 2019]. [2] W. R. Parkhurst, Cisco OSPF Command and Configuration Handbook, Cisco Press, 2002. [3] S. Empson, CCNA Portable Command Guide (CCNA Self-Study): CCNA PORTABLE COMMAND GDE _2, Cisco Press, 2007. [4] United States. Federal Highway Administration, Route 30 Improvements, Route 210 to Route 215, Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County: Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, Northwestern University, 1996. ...

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors