From: Devender Singh (devender.singh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Feb 01 2001 - 21:46:28 GMT-3
Yes you are right, I made a mistake in writing.
Devender Singh
BE(Hons), CCNP
IP Solution Specialist
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Liang [mailto:liangfrank@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 2 February 2001 11:45
To: devender.singh@cmc.cwo.net.au
Subject: RE: dlsw question
Devender,
The answer to your question 2 should be: f bit is "care bit".
Frank
>From: Devender Singh <devender.singh@cmc.cwo.net.au>
>Reply-To: Devender Singh <devender.singh@cmc.cwo.net.au>
>To: Brian Hescock <bhescock@cisco.com>
>CC: "Ccielab@Groupstudy. Com (E-mail)" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: dlsw question
>Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:20:45 +1100
>
>Brian,
>
>I did not get answres to all my quetions, from the team.
>
>1. First question was regarding ring list, --no answer --, but I seem to
>think that the rings should be attached, it does not make sense otherwise(
>I
>not sure though).
>
>2. Les Hardin confirmed that "f" in "dlsw icanreach mac-a" is don't care.
>
>3. I still have no idea about peer "cost", how can be confirmed that that
>the cost to a peer has changed. --- no answer ---
>
>
>
>Devender Singh
>BE(Hons), CCNP
>IP Solution Specialist
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Hescock [mailto:bhescock@cisco.com]
>Sent: Friday, 2 February 2001 0:15
>To: Devender Singh
>Subject: RE: dlsw question
>
>
>Devender,
> Hi, I don't recall seeing the e-mail with the answers to all of your
>questions, can you forward it to me? Thanks,
>
>Brian
>
>On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Devender Singh wrote:
>
> > Sorry Steve,
> > I don,t think getting annoyed is the solution. He gave the answer. and
>that
> > is it.
> >
> > Devender Singh
> > BE(Hons), CCNP
> > IP Solution Specialist
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Clubb [mailto:sclubb@cattech.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2001 9:09
> > To: 'Justin Menga'; 'Bill Dellamar'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: dlsw question
> >
> >
> > Justin -
> >
> > You can so verbose it's annoying.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Justin Menga [mailto:Justin.Menga@computerland.co.nz]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 1:53 PM
> > To: 'Bill Dellamar'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: dlsw question
> >
> >
> > OR
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Justin Menga CCIE #6640 MCSE+I CCSE
> > WAN Specialist
> > Computerland New Zealand
> > PO Box 3631, Auckland
> > DDI: (+64) 9 360 4864 Mobile: (+64) 25 349 599
> > mailto: justin.menga@computerland.co.nz
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Dellamar [mailto:wdellamar@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2001 7:25 a.m.
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: dlsw question
> >
> >
> > All,
> > Does anybody know if the following results in an and
> > condition or an or condition when applied to :
> >
> > dlsw remote-peer 0 tcp 1.1.1.1 host-netbios-out Mlist
> > lsap-output-list 200 dmac-output-list 700
> >
> > If access-list 700 denied 0000.0c00.0000
> > 0000.00ff.ffff
> > access-list 200 denied netbios
> > Mlist denies PC*
> >
> > Does this read: all stations with PC going to netbios
> > with a mac in the range of 0000.0c00.0000 to
> > 0000.0cff.ffff are denied.
> >
> > Or does this read: All stations with PC are denied
> > All stations going to netbios are denied
> > All stations with the mac range is denied.
> >
> > Is it an or or and condition when applied to dlsw?
> > Thanks,
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:33 GMT-3