From: Wayne Hines (wayneh@DataNetDev.com.au)
Date: Thu Nov 27 2003 - 06:29:48 GMT-3
Hello Group,
Partial Topology
S0 172.16.12.1/24 S0 172.16.12.2/24
R1-------------------------------------------R2
E0 172.16.13.1/24 S1 172.16.23.2/24
When using the distance command to control the administrative distance of
routes within the routing domain on a given router, the following
configuration would 'typically' apply.
eg
R1
conf t
router RIP
version 2
no auto-summary
network 172.16.0.0
distance 69 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 RIPRoutes
ip access-list standard RIPRoutes
permit 172.16.23.0 0.0.0.255
end
R2
conf t
router RIP
version 2
no auto-summary
network 172.16.0.0
distance 69 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 RIPRoutes
ip access-list standard RIPRoutes
permit 172.16.13.0 0.0.0.255
end
So my question is, in a time constrained environment [lab] is there any
DISadvantage to doing the following?
ie. having a generic access-list that is copied to all routers that share a
common routing protocol/domain. An access-list that includes all routes in
the domain, including those that are directly connected to the router.
R1
conf t
router RIP
version 2
no auto-summary
network 172.16.0.0
distance 69 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 RIPRoutes
ip access-list standard RIPRoutes
permit 172.16.12.0 0.0.0.255
permit 172.16.13.0 0.0.0.255
permit 172.16.23.0 0.0.0.255
end
R2
conf t
router RIP
version 2
no auto-summary
network 172.16.0.0
distance 69 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 RIPRoutes
ip access-list standard RIPRoutes
permit 172.16.12.0 0.0.0.255
permit 172.16.13.0 0.0.0.255
permit 172.16.23.0 0.0.0.255
end
end
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 12 2003 - 12:29:18 GMT-3