From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Mon Feb 09 2004 - 00:20:00 GMT-3
My vote is with you on the second one...
And apparantly the CCO documents vote the same way!
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk331/tk336/technologies_configuration_examp
le09186a0080094135.shtml#config5
So, it must be majority-rule, right? :)
HTH,
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, CISSP,
JNCIS, et al.
IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
swm@emanon.com/smorris@ipexpert.net
http://www.ipexpert.net
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Snyder
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 9:47 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: dlsw icanreach mac-address 0207.78ba.a9e1
Trying to come up to speed on dlsw mac filters.
If wanted to accept the following mac`s 0207.78ba.a9e1 0207.78ba.a9e2
0207.78ba.a9e3 0207.78ba.a9e4
Would it be:
dlsw icanreach mac-address 0207.78ba.a9e0 mask 0000.0000.0007
or
dlsw icanreach mac-address 0207.78ba.a9e0 mask ffff.fff.fff8
I think the second one is correct. It's a mask not a wildcard. The hex
makes it harder to figure. (I did 255-7 and converted back to hex) Thank God
I had that 6502 machine language course years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
While I at it, anyone have a preference between lsap filters and icanreach
saps ?
I like dlsw icanreach sap 0 4 8 C
Much better than
dlsw remote-peer 0 fst 192.168.1.1 lsap-output-list 200 access-list 200
permit 0x0000 0x0d0d
The saps seem much cleaner, and you only have to declare it once, instead of
each client.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 05 2004 - 07:13:47 GMT-3