From: James (james@towardex.com)
Date: Fri Sep 10 2004 - 05:51:49 GMT-3
Kornet.net administrator, et el;
Please remove trysk91@kornet.net off your mail server or see to it so that
this account does not inconvene hundreds of other users in a public mailing
list. This had been going on for months and the user still lacks clue in
mail box storage status.
-J
----- Forwarded message from postmaster@kornet.net -----
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:48:41 +0900
From: postmaster@kornet.net
To: james@towardex.com
Subject: [ERR] Re: Lab1 Cisco r&s Prac Labs - BGP
X-MsgID: 1094806121636721205.2.ppp7
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on mx01.bos.ma.towardex.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME
autolearn=no version=2.63
Transmit Report:
To: trysk91@kornet.net, 402 Local User Inbox Full (trysk91@kornet.net) 4,20000,20424
X-MsgID: 1094806120457403083.2.ppp7
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:47:49 -0400
From: James <james@towardex.com>
To: jean.paul.baaklini@accenture.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Lab1 Cisco r&s Prac Labs - BGP
Y-Message-ID: <20040910084749.GA64121@scylla.towardex.com>
In-Reply-To: <054360C61225DF4380FBBB66AE0C77775DF3E4@EMEXM1113.dir.svc.accenture.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-ASK-Info: Whitelist match
Reply-To: James <james@towardex.com>
X-Loop: ccielab@groupstudy.com
X-Sequence: 24497
Errors-to: ccielab-owner@groupstudy.com
Precedence: bulk
X-no-archive: yes
List-Id: <ccielab.groupstudy.com>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa@groupstudy.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:sympa@groupstudy.com?subject=subscribe%20ccielab>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sympa@groupstudy.com?subject=unsubscribe%20ccielab>
List-Post: <mailto:ccielab@groupstudy.com>
List-Owner: <mailto:ccielab-request@groupstudy.com>
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 10:29:54AM +0200, jean.paul.baaklini@accenture.com wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Working on lab 1 of these new Cisco press labs, I've noticed that I
> couldn't establish any BGP session (nor ping) between R2 and R3 unless I
> disable the Natting configured to allow RIP to unicast its updates.
>
> It looks like all the traffic coming from R2 172.16.0.1 is natted to
> 224.0.0.9. that makes communications other than RIP impossible.
>
> I thought that when specifying UDP port 520, only traffic matching
> 520/UDP would be translated.
Can you show us your NAT configuration please? Including the ACL you are
using to match the interesting traffic to nat w/
Thanks,
-j
-- James Jun TowardEX Technologies, Inc. Technical Lead Network Design, Consulting, IT Outsourcing james@towardex.com Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth Services cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:41 GMT-3