From: Albert Lu (albert_ccie@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Dec 13 2001 - 18:23:28 GMT-3
Yes, I think that was concluded. But why isn't the 1981-83 ports being
permitted for the source like port 2065?
access-list 101 permit tcp any eq 2065 any
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 2065
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 2067
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 1981
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 1982
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 1983
queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 list 101
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
tom cheung
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:53 PM
To: ccie2001ca@yahoo.ca; fradendon@home.com; albert_ccie@yahoo.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Custom queue-list for DLSW
The other ports (1981-83) are needed when prioritization is enabled for
DLSW.
>From: CCIE Candidate <ccie2001ca@yahoo.ca>
>Reply-To: CCIE Candidate <ccie2001ca@yahoo.ca>
>To: Denise Donohue <fradendon@home.com>, "'Albert Lu'"
><albert_ccie@yahoo.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Custom queue-list for DLSW
>Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 01:07:36 -0500 (EST)
>
>but why it is for 2065 only and not for other port
>numbers ?
>
>--- Denise Donohue <fradendon@home.com> wrote:
> > DLSW has to be listed twice in the access list
> > because messages are both
> > coming in and going out. Look at the two top lines
> > in that access list way
> > down at the bottom of this email. The first line
> > covers packets from
> > anybody with a dlsw source port, bound for anybody,
> > any destination port.
> > The second line covers packets from anywhere, any
> > port, destined for dlsw.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > Albert Lu
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 5:02 PM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Cc: 'Richard Gallagher'; 'David Vu'
> > Subject: RE: Custom queue-list for DLSW
> >
> >
> > Ok, did some testing. Take a look at the results.
> > The top one is without the
> > priority keyword, and the second one is with the
> > priority keyword. Looks
> > like priority keyword has to be used for port 1981,
> > 1982, 1983 to be used.
> > Otherwise it's just port 2065.
> >
> > Port 2067 seems like a port used for non cisco dlsw
> > routers. This was from
> > looking at the archives.
> >
> > But I'm also confused about why 2065 has to be
> > included twice in the access
> > list for source and destination traffic.
> >
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O CLOSED 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000
> > seq 3979558325
> > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:2065
> > 172.1.1.2:11000 seq 4145548835
> > OPTS 4 ACK 3979558326 SYN WIN 2144
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000
> > seq 3979558326
> > ACK 4145548836 WIN 20480
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I LISTEN 172.1.1.1:11000 172.1.1.2:2065
> > seq 4145571375
> > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 2144
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O SYNRCVD 172.1.1.1:11000
> > 172.1.1.2:2065 seq 3917049564
> > OPTS 4 ACK 4145571376 SYN WIN 4128
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I SYNRCVD 172.1.1.1:11000
> > 172.1.1.2:2065 seq 4145571376
> > ACK 3917049565 WIN 2144
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000
> > seq 3979558326
> > DATA 395 ACK 4145548836 PSH WIN 20480
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000
> > seq 4145548836
> > ACK 3979558721 WIN 20085
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:11000 172.1.1.2:2065
> > seq 4145571376
> > DATA 428 ACK 3917049565 PSH WIN 20480
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:11000 172.1.1.2:2065
> > seq 3917049565
> > ACK 4145571804 WIN 20052
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000
> > seq 3979558721
> > DATA 76 ACK 4145548836 PSH WIN 20480
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:11000 172.1.1.2:2065
> > seq 3917049565
> > RST WIN 20052
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11000
> > seq 4145548836
> > ACK 3979558797 WIN 20009
> >
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> > --------
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11001
> > seq 2117597008
> > DATA 395 ACK 4217556762 PSH WIN 20480
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11001
> > seq 4217556762
> > ACK 2117597403 WIN 20085
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:11001 172.1.1.2:2065
> > seq 4217579488
> > DATA 428 ACK 477058866 PSH WIN 20480
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:sh11001
> > 172.1.1.2:2065 seq 477058866
> > ACK 4217579916 WIN 20052
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11001
> > seq 2117597403
> > DATA 76 ACK 4217556762 PSH WIN 20480
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O CLOSED 172.1.1.1:1981 172.1.1.2:11002
> > seq 3562669525
> > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O CLOSED 172.1.1.1:1982 172.1.1.2:11003
> > seq 1040855164
> > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O CLOSED 172.1.1.1:1983 172.1.1.2:11004
> > seq 1592008227
> > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:11001 172.1.1.2:2065
> > seq 477058866
> > RST WIN 20052
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I ESTAB 172.1.1.1:2065 172.1.1.2:11001
> > seq 4217556762
> > ACK 2117597479 WIN 20009
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1981
> > 172.1.1.2:11002 seq 4217767660
> > OPTS 4 ACK 3562669526 SYN WIN 2144
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:1981 172.1.1.2:11002
> > seq 3562669526
> > ACK 4217767661 WIN 204
> > 4d18h: tcp0: R SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1982
> > 172.1.1.2:11003 seq 1040855164
> > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > 4d18h: tcp0: R SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1983
> > 172.1.1.2:11004 seq 1592008227
> > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1982
> > 172.1.1.2:11003 seq 4219752345
> > OPTS 4 ACK 1040855165 SYN WIN 2144
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:1982 172.1.1.2:11003
> > seq 1040855165
> > ACK 4219752346 WIN 20480
> > 4d18h: tcp0: R SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1983
> > 172.1.1.2:11004 seq 1592008227
> > OPTS 4 SYN WIN 4128
> > 4d18h: tcp0: I SYNSENT 172.1.1.1:1983
> > 172.1.1.2:11004 seq 4223752716
> > OPTS 4 ACK 1592008228 SYN WIN 2144
> > 4d18h: tcp0: O ESTAB 172.1.1.1:1983 172.1.1.2:11004
> > seq 1592008228
> > ACK 4223752717 WIN 20480
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > Richard Gallagher
> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 3:13 AM
> > To: David Vu; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Custom queue-list for DLSW
> >
> >
> > David,
> >
> > "dlsw" keyword is only for FST encapsulation, for
> > TCP you need to specify
> > all
> > the ports involved.
> >
> > Rich
> > CCIE #7211
> >
> > On Dec 12, 9:38am, David Vu chatted about:
> > > Subject:Custom queue-list for DLSW
> > > In bootcamp lab 20, it asks you to do a custom
> > queue with
> > >
> > > 50% on DLSW
> > > 25% on IP
> > > 25% on IPX
> > >
> > > For DLSW, the solution is
> > > access-list 101 permit tcp any eq 2065 any
> > > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 2065
> > > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 2067
> > > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 1981
> > > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 1982
> > > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 1983
> > > queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 list 101
> > >
> > > Would it be easier to do "queue-list 1 protocol
> > dlsw 1" instead of using
> > an
> > > access-list?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:32:43 GMT-3