Re: BGP access-list

From: Michel GASPARD (mgaspard@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Apr 19 2001 - 07:39:48 GMT-3

• Next message: Ilya Mazhara: "Time is tiebrker between confederation peers?"
• Previous message: Mohamed Heeba: "BGP access-list"
• Maybe in reply to: Mohamed Heeba: "BGP access-list"
• Next in thread: Gregory W. Posey Jr.: "RE: BGP access-list"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

   
Mohamed,

If your question is "why do the two ACL looks different", then the
answer comes from the fact that "host" is similar to a 0.0.0.0 mask.

If your question is "why is it blocking routes with mask larger than
/16?", then I would like to propose you to re-read the mail I posted
about 2 hours ago regarding the usage of extended ACL for "prefix-like"
filtering.

Does it answer your question?

Regards,

Michel

Mohamed Heeba wrote:
>
> guys ;
> i noticed in Halabi 's book the following access list
>
> access-list 101 permit ip 172.16.0.0 0.0.255.255 host 255.255.0.0
> or
> access-list 101 permit ip 172.16.0.0 0.0.255.255 255.255.0.0 0.0.0.0
>
> in both cases the access-list will permit only 172.16.0.0 /16 ONLY .
>
> any explansion for this access-list ,why it looks like that ???
>
> thx
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html

• Next message: Ilya Mazhara: "Time is tiebrker between confederation peers?"
• Previous message: Mohamed Heeba: "BGP access-list"
• Maybe in reply to: Mohamed Heeba: "BGP access-list"
• Next in thread: Gregory W. Posey Jr.: "RE: BGP access-list"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:50 GMT-3