From: Brad McConnell (mo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Oct 21 2001 - 02:10:32 GMT-3
Sorry, I guess I just forgot how much coverage of other protocols is covered
in the beginning portion of volume two. I was also foolish to think someone
would have checked the book before calling something a typeo. Furthermore,
my foolishness continued by searching for "host 255.0.0.0", "host
255.255.0.0", then "host 255.255.255.0" on cisco.com till I found a hit.
It's a nasty habit I picked up when searching for something that specific on
a website. My plebein nature was truly brought to light by not somehow
guessing that you didn't refer to the book before making your intial
response. Clearly that was in there somewhere.
And finally, I'm embarassed for not realizing how obnoxious one can be when
trying to save face.
Thank you for the education. I will apply this information towards any
responses I make to this list in an effort to both further my psychic skills
and keep everyone happy. This is sad. Truly. Drop it.
And that, my fellow groupstudy friend, is what sarcasm is.
-Brad.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Hescock" <bhescock@cisco.com>
To: "Brad McConnell" <mo@oversized.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Wiered - Access list.
> "I recommend getting a bit more familiar with how the search facility
really
> functions on cisco's site, as well" is rather sarcastic, don't you think.
The Cisco search engine has gone through changes and it's not often I have
to search on partial items (the search engine is now powered by Google, a
vast improvement). Recall, the person asked about an offbeat mask, it would
have never been in the docs. Sure, had I known the example was
255.255.255.0 I would have done "mask 255.255.255.0" but I wouldn't know
that what the example had, it could have easily been 255.255.0.0. And I
did get matches on my search, lots of them, just not that particular one in
the first several pages (however, by including the parenthesis around it so
it said: access-list <and> "host 255" it didn't so you're correct there.
>
> Regarding "debug ip packet", I work with debug ip packet against an
access-list several times a week for troubleshooting customer problems, it's
habit. If you recall, someone else had said to look for 224.x.x.x, they
also goofed. But the person had also asked how to turn on multicast and I
correctly stated it's on by default, which is the answer they really needed,
the other was just fyi (that turned out to be incorrect due being stuck in
the habit of using debug ip packet).
>
> And, as I said, no one seemed to be on the list tonight, it's been dead,
which is why I said I'd reply, even though I didn't have the book to see
what he was referring to. The access-list example only applies to bgp, had
he mentioned bgp it would have clicked that what we were seeing is the
shortened format.
>
> B.
>
>
>
> Brad McConnell wrote:
>
> >I didn't send the messages to the group, which I think is plenty tactful.
> >If you get offended about being corrected, well, I get offended when
someone
> >posts messages to this list that are later proved to be completely wrong.
> >If you're unsure of the answer, or need to reference the book, just wait
> >till you have it handy to respond. I don't think that's too much to
> >request. It wasn't that long ago you told someone to "debug ip packet"
to
> >determine an NLSP multicast address. I took that offline with Jon as
well.
> >
> >I'm not trying to be rude, and frankly I'm not being rude. I understand
not
> >enjoying being corrected, which is why I took it offline. If someone
> >answered a question you posted and noone corrected them, wouldn't you
feel a
> >bit cheated? I would.
> >
> >-Brad.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Brian Hescock" <bhescock@cisco.com>
> >To: "Rajeev Siddappa" <raj_lab@yahoo.com>
> >Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 11:23 PM
> >Subject: Re: Wiered - Access list.
> >
> >
> >>Rajeev,
> >> I guess I paid the price for not having a copy of the book at home
> >>at the moment, since someone (that could use more tact) pointed out my
> >>error. What you saw is only applicable to bgp and that particular
> >>output is the shortened format. i.e. if you enter access-list 101
> >>permit ip 192.169.192.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.248.0 0.0.0.0 it automatically
> >>converts it to access-list 101 permit ip host 192.169.192.0 host
> >>255.255.248.0, which is correct but somewhat confusing if you don't know
> >>it's in reference to bgp (I should buy another copy for at home so I
> >>could have checked the page you were referring to and seen if was
> >>referencing bgp).
> >>
> >>Brian
> >>
> >>Rajeev Siddappa wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi friends,
> >>>
> >>>Can any one explain me how this access-list works.
> >>>
> >>>access-list 101 permit IP host 192.169.192.0 host
> >>>255.255.248.0
> >>>
> >>>This is an example in Jeff-doyel vloume 2 page 189.
> >>>
> >>>Please I am breaking my head.
> >>>
> >>>Thank you,
> >>>Rajeev.
> >>>
> >>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:22 GMT-3