From: George Spahl (g.spahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 14:58:33 GMT-3
Tim,
I haven't tested this but as someone mentioned a week or two ago
(couldn't find the e-mail) I don't see how the distribute list with the
extended ACL could work if this is RIP v1 since it doesn't send the mask
with the update.
Hope this helps!
George
p.s. There are examples of using the extended access-list in this way in
Doyle, Vol. II, p 190, Halabi, 2nd Ed. p 349. and Parkhurst BGP-4, p
207.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Ouellette, Tim
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2002 8:51 PM
To: 'cisco@groupstudy.com'
Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: Distribute-list with extended ACL
RouterA is advertising the range 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 - 08:12:35 GMT-3