Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Module Title: Network Routing Architectures Assessed Learning Outcomes 1.

Critically evaluate the suitability and applicability of routing protocols within a campus network environment 2. Devise strategies for implementing Quality of Service within a campus network 3. Devise an efficient IP addressing scheme for a campus network 4. Design and implement a complex routable computer network 5. Configure routers and switches to optimise network performance and Quality of Service Overview The International Travel Agency (ITA) has recently acquired a specialised travel agency and the network needs considerable configuration to merge the two existing networks. The proposed topology is shown below:

Specific Requirements Configure interfaces with the IP addresses shown in the topology diagram. Set the bandwidth to 256kbps on the links between R1, R2 and R3 and set the clock rates on the DCE connections as appropriate. Configure the OSPF router identifier 2.2.2.2 on R2 and 3.3.3.3 on R3 Ensure that all loopback interfaces are advertised in OSPF with the correct masks. Place the loopback interface Lo0 on R3 and the connection between R2 and R3 in OSPF Area 0. Propagate default route from R3 into the OSPF domain. Configure R1 and R2 to be in EIGRP AS 101 Redistribute EIGRP into OSPF with a metric cost of 200 On R2, filter network 192.168.113.0 from being advertised to R3 Enable BGP on both WAN links between R3 and R4. Advertise R4s loopback interfaces into BGP. Using appropriate BGP attribute(s) on R3 to favour the T1 connection to R4. Using appropriate static routes to favour the T1 link for incoming traffic to R3 and provide link resilience via the Fractional T1 link Configure IPv6 loopback and tunnel interfaces on R1 and R3. Enable RIPng on R1 and R3 and configure the advertisement of the loopback and tunnel networks.

Network verification Verify that each router has reachability with all addresses in the topology diagram. Verify that filtered routes are not present in routing tables of the appropriate routers Verify that traffic from AS 65101 to AS 65401 used the preferred T1 route Verify that R4 has a backup route to the AS 65101 networks if the T1 link fails Verify that R1 and R3 have learned of their respective IPv6 networks via RIPng. Verify that R1 can ping R3 Lo3 interface via the IPv6 tunnel. R1 and R3 should also be able to ping the tunnel endpoints.

In addition to the specific requirements of the case study, students should apply best practice to ensure that the network operates both optimally and securely. Deliverables A technical report comprising: Detailed design description including justifications and best practice Suitably annotated configuration files for each router (one per page) A detailed test plan mapping tests to specific assignment requirements. Test results verifying specific assignment requirements

Grade Criteria

Grade 70+

60 - 69

50 - 59

40 - 49

0 -39

Comment A very high quality submission. The student has applied, and justified the use of, the advanced features of the relevant protocols to maximise efficiency, security and resilience. There is evidence of the deployment of best practice in all areas of the design. Configuration files are suitably annotated and easy to read. A detailed test plan and test results has been submitted of sufficient depth to prove that the submission meets all of the specific assignment specification. Student has demonstrated advanced knowledge during the presentation A high quality submission. The student has demonstrated very good knowledge of the underlying protocols and can apply them correctly. There is evidence of good practice in most areas of the design. The design might highlight some deficiencies in terms of efficiency, security or resilience. The configuration files are well documented and easy to read. A detailed test plan and results have been submitted but there may be a lack of rigour or it may be incomplete. The student has demonstrated a high level of knowledge during the presentation A good quality submission. The student has demonstrated a good knowledge of the underlying protocols and has applied them to a good standard but without utilising the advanced features or best practice that support or promote efficiency, security and resilience. The student has produced a test plan and results but this lacks rigour and may be incomplete. The student has demonstrated good knowledge of the core concepts during the presentation The student has met the minimum assessed learning outcomes but has failed to address the key areas of efficiency, security and resilience and best practice. The test plan and associated test results are superficial and lack rigour. The student demonstrated a basic knowledge during the presentation The student has failed to meet the minimum requirement of the assessed learning outcomes. The report will lack quality in terms of the design process, configuration files or testing strategy. The student will be unable to demonstrate core knowledge during the presentation