From: Ram Shummoogum (rshummoo@ca.ibm.com)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 19:58:43 GMT-3
See further below: The fix is in 12.1xxxxxxx
This is the correct one
access-list 1101 permit 4000.1000.0000 0000.00ff.ffff 0000.0000.0000
ffff.ffff.ffff
Note that there is no need to use the extended in the above case.
Cheers
Chris Home <clarson52@comcast.net> on 12/12/2002 05:38:09 PM
To: Chris Home <clarson52@comcast.net>, Ram Shummoogum/Quebec/IBM@IBMCA
cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: DLSW bitswap-confusion
Are you gonna tell us which had the bug? Or more importantly which way is
correct?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Home" <clarson52@comcast.net>
To: "Ram Shummoogum" <rshummoo@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: DLSW bitswap-confusion
> oops. Sorry, I see about the access-list mask. So what is the result?
Which
> had the bug?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ram Shummoogum" <rshummoo@ca.ibm.com>
> To: <clarson52@comcast.net>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 7:02 PM
> Subject: Re: DLSW bitswap-confusion
>
>
> > If you look at the mask you will notice that I don't care about the
last
> 24
> > bits.
> > I did some more digging on the CCO and found that there is a bug in
dlsw
> > access-list and has been fixed in 12.1xxxxx. There are a lot of
versions
> > affected including 12.0(21). They don't give too much detail about the
> bug.
> >
> >
> > cheers,
> > RAM
> >
> > Chris Home <clarson52@comcast.net> on 12/11/2002 06:41:45 PM
> >
> > To: Ram Shummoogum/Quebec/IBM@IBMCA, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > cc:
> > Subject: Re: DLSW bitswap-confusion
> >
> >
> > The rule that goes around says always non-canonical with dlsw. I am not
> > sure, but I would say no, you wouldn't bit swap the already
non-canonical
> > token ring mac. I have my doubts of course because of it working both
> ways.
> > Also, I don't think the bit-swapping operation you did is correct.
Maybe
> > you
> > just didn't want to finish it out ? I get 0200.080A.0880.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ram Shummoogum" <rshummoo@ca.ibm.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:41 PM
> > Subject: DLSW bitswap-confusion
> >
> >
> > > Hi Experts:
> > >
> > >
> > > E0-----RA--(dlsw)---RB----TR0
> > >
> > > My host is at TR0 with mac 400010501001
> > > My PU is at E0 ( I have bit-swapped 400010501001 to 0200.0800.0000)
> > >
> > > I have an output filter on E0 that will permit the host.
> > >
> > > I am running 120.0.21 and my filter is like that:
> > >
> > > access-list 1101 permit 0200.0800.0000 0000.00ff.ffff 0000.0000.0000
> > > ffff.ffff.ffff
> > >
> > > with the above config everything works fine as shown in the show dlsw
> > peers
> > > or circuits etc....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My problem is that When I use version 12.1.17 I have to change my ACL
to
> > > the followign to get the same results.
> > >
> > > access-list 1101 permit 4000.1000.0000 0000.00ff.ffff 0000.0000.0000
ff
> > > ff.ffff.ffff
> > >
> > >
> > > One of them must have a bug and the Big ? is which one.
> > >
> > > should I bitswapped or not??
> > >
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > RAM-514-205-6612
> > > .
> .
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 17:21:44 GMT-3