From: Lupi, Guy (Guy.Lupi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Aug 20 2002 - 16:51:42 GMT-3
I have seen it work with EIGRP in one case, but not reliably in all
situations. The only protocol I have ever used it with, where it did
exactly what I expected every time, was BGP. As Brian said, it may be IOS
dependent.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian McGahan [mailto:brian@cyscoexpert.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 3:55 PM
To: ccie1@lycos.com; 'Raj'; 'William Wong Kun Sing'; 'Groupstudy'; Lupi,
Guy
Subject: RE: ACL to block /29 route?
No, you cannot apply it in all situations. I think it is dependent on
the IOS train, so I won't say when you can or can't use it. It
definitely can be applied to BGP though. Regardless, you should be
using the prefix-list instead.
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
Director of Design and Implementation
brian@cyscoexpert.com
CyscoExpert Corporation
Internetwork Consulting & Training
http://www.cyscoexpert.com
Voice: 847.674.3392
Fax: 847.674.2625
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccie candidate [mailto:ccie1@lycos.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:58 PM
> To: 'Raj'; Brian McGahan; 'William Wong Kun Sing'; 'Groupstudy'; Lupi,
Guy
> Subject: RE: ACL to block /29 route?
>
> ru sure about the ACL is supported with BGP only ..in fact the
extended
> ACL format is like that
>
> access-list 101 permit ip source wildmask {dest wildmask | mask
wildmask }
>
> so i beleive it should work with any protocol .
>
>
>
> --
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:26:36
> Lupi, Guy wrote:
> >Extended access lists for route filtering are only supported in BGP,
so
> this
> >might do something, but I don't think it would accomplish what you
want
> it
> >to.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Raj [mailto:raj.bahad@totalise.co.uk]
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 8:16 AM
> >To: Brian McGahan; 'William Wong Kun Sing'; 'Groupstudy'
> >Subject: RE: ACL to block /29 route?
> >
> >
> >Guys,
> >
> >Could you not use the following as an alternative to prefix-lists?
> >
> >access-list 101 permit 168.1.10.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0
> >
> >Or is there a restriction on using extended access-lists with
route-maps?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Raj.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Brian McGahan [mailto:brian@cyscoexpert.com]
> >Sent: 20 August 2002 12:41
> >To: 'Raj'; 'William Wong Kun Sing'; 'Groupstudy'
> >Subject: RE: ACL to block /29 route?
> >
> >
> >William,
> >
> > You need to use a prefix-list to match this route, since an
> >access-list cannot match on prefix and length. Your syntax would
look
> >like:
> >
> >Ip prefix OSPF permit 168.1.10.0/24
> >!
> >Route-map OSPF2RIP permit 10
> > Match ip address prefix-list OSPF
> >!
> >router RIP
> > redistribute OSPF 1 metric 1 route-map OSPF2RIP
> >!
> >
> > This is assuming that you already have the /24 summary on R2.
> >
> >
> >HTH
> >
> >Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> >Director of Design and Implementation
> >brian@cyscoexpert.com
> >
> >CyscoExpert Corporation
> >Internetwork Consulting & Training
> >http://www.cyscoexpert.com
> >Voice: 847.674.3392
> >Fax: 847.674.2625
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> >Raj
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 6:11 AM
> >To: William Wong Kun Sing; 'Groupstudy'
> >Subject: RE: ACL to block /29 route?
> >
> >How about this:
> >
> >area x range 168.1.10.0 255.255.255.0
> >
> >If anyone disagrees, let me know!
> >
> >Raj.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf
Of
> >William Wong Kun Sing
> >Sent: 20 August 2002 11:58
> >To: 'Groupstudy'
> >Subject: ACL to block /29 route?
> >
> >
> >Hi guys
> >
> >
> >I have these 2 ospf routes in r2 being redistributed into rip in r2:
> >
> >168.1.10.0/29
> >168.1.10.0/24
> >
> >
> > ---------OSPF--------r2------------RIP----------------r3
> > 168.1.10.0/29 166.1.10.0/24
> >
> >
> >I just want to advertise the /24 network to r3. How can I achieve
that?
> >
> >Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >
> >William
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:31 GMT-3