From: Stephens, Paul [Prof.Serv] (Paul.Andrew.Stephens@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Mar 15 2000 - 05:16:06 GMT-3
Hi James
Yes I am pinging from a host on E0/0 to 10.0.3.51. The policy is applied to
E0/0 on the router that I am running the debug policy from.
Kinton, I understand what your saying about the last match statement and
I'll add this but the problem is, as you can see from the debug trace that
the policy is making a match and but then rejects the policy and use normal
forwarding to route the packet. What I can't do is find anyway to tell if it
has actually set the ip precedence bit, I'm thinking it isn't. also I 'm not
sure why it's rejecting the policy after making a match, I'll see what it
does after adding the extra match
Thanks for your help so far
Paul Stephens
UK INI Network Consultant
Networks and Systems Integration Services
Compaq Computer Ltd
*mailto:paul.andrew.stephens@compaq.com
<mailto:paul.andrew.stephens@compaq.com>
* Mobile +44 7818 457948
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Schwimer [mailto:schwim@speedchoice.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 4:00
To: Stephens, Paul [Prof.Serv]; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: IP Precedence
Paul,
Just a thought on your access lists. You have them listed
as:
access-list 100 permit udp any eq tftp host 10.0.3.51
access-list 101 permit tcp any eq telnet host 10.0.3.51
access-list 105 permit icmp any host 10.0.3.51
Are you telnetting and/or tftp'ing TO the 10.0.3.51 server
(ie. initiating
the session from elsewhere)?
If so, correct me if I am wrong but would you not want to
have the
_destination_ (the 10.0.3.51 host) in the access-list set to
equal the
port/type of traffic you are trying to effect? For example:
access-list 100 permit udp any host 10.0.3.51 EQ TFTP
access-list 101 permit tcp any host 10.0.3.51 EQ TELNET
access-list 105 permit icmp any host 10.0.3.51
Anyone have any ideas relating to this?
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephens, Paul [Prof.Serv]"
<Paul.Andrew.Stephens@compaq.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 11:32 AM
Subject: IP Precedence
> Hi Guys
>
> I'm doing some labs at the moment with setting the IP
precedence bit. I
have
> a route-map and policy routing configured but when I debug
the policy it
> says it has matched the policy and then rejects the
policy. Below is the
> debug trace
>
> 01:52:26: IP: s=192.168.100.26 (Ethernet0/0), d=10.0.3.51,
len 100, policy
> match
>
> 01:52:26: IP: route map tftp, item 25, permit
> 01:52:26: IP: s=192.168.100.26 (Ethernet0/0), d=10.0.3.51
(Serial0/0), len
> 100,
> policy rejected -- normal forwarding
>
> This is the route-map from the config
>
> interface Ethernet0/0
> ip address 192.168.100.25 255.255.255.248
> no ip directed-broadcast
> ip policy route-map tftp
>
> access-list 100 permit udp any eq tftp host 10.0.3.51
> access-list 101 permit tcp any eq telnet host 10.0.3.51
> access-list 105 permit icmp any host 10.0.3.51
> !
> route-map tftp permit 10
> match ip address 101
> set ip precedence critical
> !
> route-map tftp permit 20
> match ip address 100
> set ip precedence flash-override
> !
> route-map tftp permit 25
> match ip address 105
> set ip precedence immediate
> !
> route-map tftp permit 30
> set ip precedence routine
>
>
> What I want to know is there any way to tell if the ip
precedence bit is
> being set. When I do the show int ser0/0 precedence
command I don't get
> anything back
>
> Any help appreciated
>
> Paul Stephens
>
> UK INI Network Consultant
> Networks and Systems Integration Services
> Compaq Computer Ltd
>
> *mailto:paul.andrew.stephens@compaq.com
> <mailto:paul.andrew.stephens@compaq.com>
> * Mobile +44 7818 457948
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:05 GMT-3