From: Brian Hescock (bhescock@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Oct 21 2001 - 11:04:57 GMT-3
Did I admit I was wrong, yes, and I explained why. I had only responded
because no one else seemed to be checking e-mail on the list last night
and, not knowing it was in reference to BGP, I replied with what would
have otherwise been the correct answer. Did I not also mention
publicly to the list I was wrong and that I learned my lesson by not
looking at the referenced book / page first (my copy was at work)? I
hope your childish attack on me in public makes you feel better. This
will be my only reply back out to the list regarding this, I encourage
you to take it off-line if you have anything further you would like to
say to me.
B.
Brad McConnell wrote:
>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