From: P729 (p729@xxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jul 26 2002 - 22:02:15 GMT-3
Other than some of the earlier IOS command references, not really. Halabi's
book cites a few examples. I think they've become kind of archaic since
prefix-lists became available...
Regards,
Mas Kato
https://ecardfile.com/id/mkato
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Pace" <anthonypace@fastmail.fm>
To: "P729" <p729@cox.net>; "Ted McDermott" <tedmcdermott@yahoo.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: Simple Question on Extended Access Lists
> Mas Kato,
>
> Are there any Cisco references that explain the more elaborate flavors
> of these kinds of "filter exetnded ACLs" also which protocoles use it
> to mean network + mask and which use it for neighbor + network..
>
>
> Anthony Pace
>
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:40:34 -0700, "P729" <p729@cox.net> said:
> > Ted,
> >
> > This form of an extended access-list is specifying that the subnet mask
> > in
> > the update must be 255.0.0.0 and the 0.0.0.0 wildcard mask for it means
> > it
> > must be an exact match.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mas Kato
> > https://ecardfile.com/id/mkato
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ted McDermott" <tedmcdermott@yahoo.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 8:27 PM
> > Subject: Simple Question on Extended Access Lists
> >
> >
> > > On page 2 of 10 of the Cisco - BGP Case Studies
> > > Section 3
> > > (http:/www.cisco.com/warp/customer/459/15.html), the
> > > author uses "access-list 101 permit ip 160.0.0.0
> > > 0.255.255.255 255.0.0.0 0.0.0.0" to permit
> > > 160.0.0.0/8. The 255.0.0.0 as a destination address
> > > doesn't make any sense. It ought to be 0.0.0.0. Right
> > > or wrong? Thanks, Ted
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:45 GMT-3