From: Chris Hugo (chrishugo@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Jun 16 2002 - 22:29:33 GMT-3
Hi,
It is the third octet of the 199.199.0.0 that makes the difference here. The wa
y you have the access-list configured is to permit odd numbers. The statement I
present will allow EVEN networks 0,2,4,6,8 and etc.Your statement will allow O
DD networks 1,3,5,7,9 ,and etc.
The wildcard 0.0.254.0 will lock down all bits except the third octet which wil
l fluctuate to accommodate your prefixes that you wish to propagate.
The third octet of the wildcard statement will lock down the first bit which yo
u don't want to toggle since you only want ODD or in your case EVEN networks wi
ll be propagated.
access-list 1 per 199.199.0.0 0.0.254.0
*It's always best to write out the statements to eliminate guesswork. My EE Day
s were the same thing.
hth,
chris hugo
BTW, HAPPY FATHER'S DAY TO ALL.
"Ouellette, Tim" <tim.ouellette@eds.com> wrote: RouterA is advertising the ra
nge of networks 199.199.1.0/24 through
199.199.2.0/24 and I'm trying to use a distribute-list out on RouterA under
the RIP process to filter the even subnets. If I use a standard ACL that
looks like this "access-list 1 permit 199.199.1.0 0.0.254.255" then the
proper routes get filtered. I then tried to use an extended ACL with the
distribute-list to try and filter the same routes but couldn't get it to
work. Can someone explain to me how this works. From my understanding, the
destination portion of the extended ACL when used with a distribute-list
matches on the subnet mask that is in the update. I tried using
255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 which didn't work, neither did host 255.255.255.0 .
Anyone have any ideas?
199.199.1.0/24 - 199.199.10.0/24 RouterA ======= RouterB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:34 GMT-3