From: Chua, Parry (Parry.Chua@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Mar 30 2002 - 01:10:35 GMT-3
The 2nd line make the first line redundance, reason is:-
^701_[0-9]*$ give us the following results:
- with "_" and "*" where * is zero instances we get (701)
- With "_" and "*" where * is more instancee we get (701 xyz) wher xyz is any v
alid as number.
> Parry Chua
>
>
//////////////////////////
-----Original Message-----
From: GerbCraig [mailto:gerbermc@mindspring.com]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 10:37 PM
To: ying chang; bsin@erols.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: AS-path access-list
In order to filter on an AS and any AS that is attached to it you must first
include the AS itself and then the AS and its connected AS
i.e.:
ip prefix-list 1 permit ^701$ (permits the AS 701)
ip prefix-list 1 permit ^701_[0-9]*$ (permits AS 701 and any combination of
AS that may be attached to the 701 AS)
----- Original Message -----
From: "ying chang" <ying_c@hotmail.com>
To: <bsin@erols.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: AS-path access-list
> Bob,
>
> I think "_" or " " will give us the same result in this case. Actually,
> ^701_[0-9]*$, ^701 [0-9]*$, ^701_([0-9]*)?$, or ^701 ([0-9]*)?$ all
returned
> the same result when I tried them earlier.
>
> Come to think about it, here is what I think how we get 7018:
>
> "?" is match 0 or 1 occurrences of the pattern. When "?" is equal to 0, we
> will get 701[0-9]*, whether we are using "_" or " ". Baically we got
> "^701_[0-9]*$" and "^701[0-9]*$" in our case.
>
> Learn new thing every day.
>
> Thanks,
> Chang
>
///////////////////////////////
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:26 GMT-3