From: Voss, David (dvoss@heidrick.com)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 01:53:07 GMT-3
If you type in the following:
dlsw icanreach 4444.4444.4444
and then hit enter...
it shows up as
dlsw icanreach mac-address 4444.4444.4444 mask ffff.ffff.ffff
If you type in the following
access-list 700 permit 4444.4444.4444
and hit enter....
it shows up as
access-list 700 permit 4444.4444.4444 0000.0000.0000
makes me wonder one of two things:
1) dlsw is putting in a wildcard mask for me that I don't want in the
icanreach statement
2) dlsw uses ffff for an exact match in the icanreach statement
I'll check on this tomorrow, but maybe someone knows the answer off the bat?
-----Original Message-----
From: craig rees [mailto:craigrees74@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 8:52 AM
To: Voss, David; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: DLSW:explorer & MAC
would it be ?
dlsw icanreach 4004.0000.4444 mask 0000.ffff.0000
or
dlsw icanreach 4004.0000.4444 mask ffff.0000.ffff
I have seen the mask to mac addresses both ways. I am trying to figure this
out. It appears the bootcamps have it 4004.0000.4444 mask ffff.0000.fffff
anyone know?
"Voss, David" <dvoss@heidrick.com> wrote:
I'm sure this is what the lab is asking for. Can't tell by your wording,
but I believe you are looking for option #2.
dlsw icanreach mac-exclusive
dlsw icanreach 4004.0000.4444 mask 0000.ffff.0000
-----Original Message-----
From: Sage Vadi [mailto:sagevadi@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 10:36 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: DLSW:explorer & MAC
All,
Q) You are trying to eliminate explorer packets from
traversing the network. Configure R1 so that explorers
for MAC address 4004.XXXX.4444 do not get sent through
the network. This addresss should be exclusive to R1.
I was pondering about this. And I came to a few
conclusions, but I am not sure if they are correct.
1# We could implement a MAC to PEER mapping statement
on R3, with "dlsw mac-addr"
NB: this doesn't allows us the flexibility of MAC
classification.
2# We could implement "dlsw icanreach mac-exclusive"
on the core router.
NB: but this would then propagate to all other peers
as well.
Any suggestions/thoughts/insights?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:26 GMT-3