access-expression "out" vs "in"

From: Omer Ansari (omer@ansari.com)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 07:57:46 GMT-3

• Next message: Raj Thava[IPC_Head Office]: "Static CAM entry"
• Previous message: IG: "Message BLOG"
• Next in thread: Edward Monk: "RE: access-expression "out" vs "in""
• Maybe reply: Edward Monk: "RE: access-expression "out" vs "in""
• Maybe reply: Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE): "RE: access-expression "out" vs "in""
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

All,
question in the unnamed lab was:

Configure R4 so that only SNA traffic to MAC address 3745.0001.0001 is
allowed on [R4's] Ring2.

my answer was:
!
interface TokenRing0/0
 ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.240
...
 access-expression output (dmac(701) & lsap(201))
!

access-list 201 permit 0x0000 0x0D0D
access-list 701 permit 3745.0001.0001 0000.0000.0000
!

does the above look ok? [the solutions had access-expression input
instead]

Omer

> Unnamed questions
> =================
> 3.Sec XI, q2
> on router4, shouldn't this be access-expression out .... instead of "in" ?

• Next message: Raj Thava[IPC_Head Office]: "Static CAM entry"
• Previous message: IG: "Message BLOG"
• Next in thread: Edward Monk: "RE: access-expression "out" vs "in""
• Maybe reply: Edward Monk: "RE: access-expression "out" vs "in""
• Maybe reply: Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE): "RE: access-expression "out" vs "in""
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:54 GMT-3