From: Connary, Julie Ann (jconnary@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Apr 05 2001 - 20:30:47 GMT-3
But serialization packets have nothing to do with IPX routing and state
changes -
the have to do with Servers exchanging/broadcasting licensing in older 3.12
environments.
So yes - you do have to filter them if they are on the network or they will
keep your
link up if you permit all IPX. I do not know how to simulate them at all.
But I have
seen some practice labs that say (bootcamp 8 - I think has this in it.) -
pretend you have Novell 3.12 servers on your network and insure
that your dial-backup does not come up as a result - or something to that
effect. Then you have
to know those commands and apply them. Of course - with no serialization
packets actually on
the network - it is hard to determine it is actually working.
Julie Ann
At 03:02 PM 4/5/2001 +0800, Daryl Wan Wai Meng wrote:
>Just to add on...
>
>456 and 457 are serialization packets.
>For snapshot with suppress-statechange-updates, it waits for the timing as
>specified before bringing the line up. So why deny serialization packets. It
>would not activate anyway. I usually just use "dialer-list 1 protocol ipx
>permit", it seems to work.
>
>If you use snapshot without the command "suppress-statechange-updates", this
>would make sense as the serialization packets would bring up the line
>periodically and snapshot would work its magic.
>
>Does anyone else have different views on snapshot? This question has been on
>my mind for quite a while.
>
>
>Daryl
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank Leung
>To: devender.singh@cmc.cwo.net.au; jianggx@transcentury.com.cn;
>ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Sent: 4/5/01 12:54 PM
>Subject: RE: Does I really need these commands in the config of IPX Snapsh
>ot routing??
>
>I can get ipx snapshot working on Ccbootcamp#7 without those lists.
>Marc's
>solution use them as well.
>
>Frank
>
> >From: Devender Singh <devender.singh@cmc.cwo.net.au>
> >Reply-To: Devender Singh <devender.singh@cmc.cwo.net.au>
> >To: Jiang <jianggx@transcentury.com.cn>, CCIELAB
><ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Subject: RE: Does I really need these commands in the config of IPX
>Snapsh
> >ot routing??
> >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:08:08 +1000
> >
> >I agree with you. I seen this kind of configs at other places on CCO as
> >well.
> >
> >Devender Singh
> >BE(Hons), CCNP
> >IP Solution Specialist
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jiang [mailto:jianggx@transcentury.com.cn]
> >Sent: Sunday, 25 March 2001 11:19
> >To: CCIELAB
> >Subject: Does I really need these commands in the config of IPX
>Snapshot
> >routing??
> >
> >
> >Hello, all,
> >
> >In CCO "http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/129/21.html",I think there
> >are some mistakes in the configuration. the dialer-list is the
> >following:
> >access-list 901 deny 0 FFFFFFFF 0 FFFFFFFF 457
> >access-list 901 deny 1 10.0000.0000.0001 0 10.ffff.ffff.ffff 453
> >access-list 901 deny 4 10.0000.0000.0001 0 10.ffff.ffff.ffff 452
> >access-list 901 deny 4 FFFFFFFF 0 FFFFFFFF 456
> >access-list 901 permit 0
> >access-list 901 permit 1
> >access-list 901 permit 4
> >access-list 901 permit 5
> >access-list 901 permit 17
> >access-list 901 permit 20
> >
> >I think they shouldn't deny sap and rip(453 and 452), because one
> >role of snapshot is handling such thing, they can't trigger the
> >call even you don't deny them. I tested it in my lab, just deny 457,
>the
> >routers worked well. Although the config of the cco can also work, but
> >I think there shouldn't be added. The questions is if you understand
> >the concept of snapshot routing. Before I read this config, I think
> >I understand sanpshot very well, but this config really make me
> >puzzled.
> >
> >Do you think my understanding of snapshot routing is right or not? If
> >I am wrong, pls correct me.
> >
> >Another question, what is sap 456, should I deny it or not?
> >
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Guoxing Jiang mailto:jianggx@transcentury.com.cn
> >
> >
> >**NOTE** All LAB SWAP messages should now be sent to the
> >LAB SWAP Message board on groupstudy.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:41 GMT-3