From: Nigel Taylor (nigel_taylor@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 09:53:31 GMT-3
Paul,
I noticed you might want to check the example in halabi's book
on pg. 349...
HTH
Nigel.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Crist <pcrist@netsync.net>
To: John Hever <john.hever@tangent-services.demon.co.uk>; 'Stephen Oliver'
<stevie_oliver@hotmail.com>; <Russell.Fear@capgemini.co.uk>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: BGP filter
> Russell,
>
> A second option to allow only the aggregate address would be to use a
prefix
> list.
>
> Paul Crist
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Hever" <john.hever@tangent-services.demon.co.uk>
> To: "'Stephen Oliver'" <stevie_oliver@hotmail.com>;
> <Russell.Fear@capgemini.co.uk>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 7:27 AM
> Subject: RE: BGP filter
>
>
> > Russell/Stevie,
> >
> > My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that you are using
> and
> > extended acccess list to permit an aggregate route and deny the specific
> > routes?
> >
> > Therefore I believe that the statement should be:
> >
> > Access-list 103 permit ip 192.201.48.0 0.0.3.255 255.255.252.0 0.0.0.0
> >
> > As the second address/mask pair will indicate the mask size, not
> destination
> > address and mask as in a normal extended access list.
> >
> > So the first address/mask pair define the address prefix (which both the
> > aggergate and the specific routes will match) and the second
address/mask
> > pair define the mask length (which only the aggregate route will match).
> >
> > HTH
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > Stephen Oliver
> > Sent: 17 August 2001 10:07
> > To: Russell.Fear@capgemini.co.uk; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: BGP filter
> >
> >
> > Try
> >
> > Access-list 103 permit ip 192.201.48.0 0.0.3.255 any
> >
> > Stevie.
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Fear, Russell H" <Russell.Fear@capgemini.co.uk>
> > >Reply-To: "Fear, Russell H" <Russell.Fear@capgemini.co.uk>
> > >To: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > >Subject: BGP filter
> > >Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:34:09 +0100
> > >
> > >Can someone in the group tell me where I'm going wrong here ?
> > >
> > >I have networks 194.201.48.0/24 - 194.201.51.0/24 plus the aggregate of
> > >194.201.48.0/22 being advertised by a BGP speaker. I am trying various
> > >kinds
> > >of filters and the one I cannot get to work is the following.
> > >
> > >neighbour 172.168.16.1 distribute-list 103 out
> > >
> > >access-list 103 permit ip host 194.201.48.0 host 255.255.252.0
> > >
> > >The aggregate does not even reach the BGP table in the second
router.I've
> > >checked the syntax and I think that this should let the aggregate only
> > >through.
> > >
> > >
> > >Any obvious mistakes ?
> > >
> > >
> > >Russell
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>***************************************************************************
> > *****************
> > >" This message contains information that may be privileged or
> confidential
> > >and
> > >is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended
> only
> > >for
> > >the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
> recipient,
> > >you
> > >are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate,
distribute,
> > >or use
> > >this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error,
> > >please
> > >notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message ".
> >
>
>***************************************************************************
> > *****************
> > >**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:52 GMT-3