From: Hunt Lee (ciscoforme3@yahoo.com.au)
Date: Sat Feb 08 2003 - 01:12:58 GMT-3
Are you sure? I tried it and it doesn't work...
London(config)#router eigrp 100
London(config-router)#distribute-list ?
<1-199> IP access list number
<1300-2699> IP expanded access list number
WORD Access-list name
gateway Filtering incoming updates based on gateway
prefix Filter prefixes in routing updates
London(config-router)#
--- "Khalid A. Kaseb" <khalid_ameen@rayaintegration.com> wrote: > Distribut-list
prefix under the router configuration is working with
> prefix-list
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Hunt Lee
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:44 PM
> To: Brian McGahan; jim.phillipo@guardent.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: CyscoExpert lab
>
> Sorry... please ignore my last post. Forget that distribute-list only
> works with
> Access-List, but not Prefix List.
>
> Cheers,
> Lee
>
>
>
> --- Hunt Lee <ciscoforme3@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Hi Brian / Jim,
> >
> > Thanks so much for the quick reply. After I did a "distance eigrp 95
> 95", I then
> > have the recursive routing problem. I was intented to block off the
> 150.1.2.0/24
> > route from learning via R4's Tunnel interface, but R4 keeps on saying
> it is
> > learning
> > the route from the tunnel int even after I put in the distribute-list
> under EIGRP
> > process...
> >
> > interface Tunnel0
> > ip address 150.1.24.4 255.255.255.0
> > tunnel source Loopback0
> > tunnel destination 150.1.2.2
> >
> > router eigrp 100
> > redistribute rip route-map inEIGRP
> > passive-interface FastEthernet0/0
> > passive-interface Serial0/0
> > network 150.1.14.4 0.0.0.0
> > network 150.1.24.0 0.0.0.255
> > default-metric 1000 1 255 1 1000
> > distribute-list BlockTunnel in Tunnel0
> > distance eigrp 95 95
> > no auto-summary
> >
> > route-map BlockTunnel permit 10
> > match ip address prefix-list PrefixA
> >
> > ip prefix-list PrefixA deny 150.1.2.2/32
> > ip prefix-list PrefixA deny 150.1.2.0/24
> > ip prefix-list PrefixA permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32
> >
> > Thanks so much for the help in advance,
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lee
> >
> >
> > --- Brian McGahan <brian@cyscoexpert.com> wrote: > Hunt,
> > >
> > > You cannot change the distance of External EIGRP on a per prefix
> > > basis. Therefore, either you must change the distance of the OSPF
> > > prefix as you have done, or change the distance of all External
> EIGRP
> > > prefixes as Jim has proposed.
> > >
> > > For your DLSw+ question, yes you need a LLC2 mapping. Since
> > > DLSw+ lite uses local acknowledgment, you must provide reliable
> > > transport over the WAN. Frame-Relay by itself is not reliable,
> > > therefore the extra LLC2 header must be added to ensure reliable
> > > transport.
> > >
> > > HTH
> > >
> > > Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> > > Director of Design and Implementation
> > > brian@cyscoexpert.com
> > >
> > > CyscoExpert Corporation
> > > Internetwork Consulting & Training
> > > Toll Free: 866.CyscoXP
> > > Fax: 847.674.2625
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> Behalf
> > > Of
> > > > Hunt Lee
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:19 AM
> > > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: CyscoExpert lab
> > > >
> > > > Hi friends,
> > > >
> > > > I have some questions about the configuration for Cyscoexpert
> Sample
> > > lab.
> > > >
> > > > First: for question 2 under J
> > > >
> > > > 2. Double check R1, are you missing any routes?
> > > >
> > > > I got this to work by increasing the Admin Dist. of OSPF route at
> R4
> > > from
> > > > R3
> > > >
> > > > router ospf 1
> > > > distance 180 195.1.3.3 0.0.0.0 1
> > > >
> > > > However, instead of doing this, if I tried to decrease the Admin
> Dist
> > > of
> > > > EIGRP route
> > > > from R2 (via Tunnel). It doesn't work.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's because R2 actually got the route via OSPF as well,
> hence
> > > > even now
> > > > EIGRP has a lower Admin Dist than OSPF at R4, R2 would have no
> EIGRP
> > > route
> > > > (150.1.30.0/24) for distribute into R4.
> > > >
> > > > Am I right?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Second: for question 3 under H.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Configure a DLSW+ session between R3 & R4 direct over the
> > > Frame-relay
> > > > network.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think it has been done by:
> > > >
> > > > dlsw local-peer peer-id 150.1.4.4
> > > > dlsw remote-peer 0 frame-relay interface Serial0/0 403
> > > > dlsw bridge-group 1
> > > >
> > > > Am I right?
> > > >
> > > > If so, is there any reason why I would need to use frame-relay map
> > > llc2
> > > > 403
> > > > broadcast command? Is this command always required for DLSW Lite
> > > config?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks so much for the help in advance,
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Lee
> > > >
> > > > http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
> > > > - What's on at your local cinema?
> > > > .
> > http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
> > - Send some online love this Valentine's Day.
> >
>
> http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
> - Send some online love this Valentine's Day.
> .
http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Greetings
- Send some online love this Valentine's Day.
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:16 GMT-3