From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Oct 05 2004 - 11:59:30 GMT-3
I agree. I'm always wondering if I'm using the correct option when there
are more than 1 way of doing something.
Thanks, Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris kane" <cakane@insight.rr.com>
To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Dlsw filtering
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Are you saying that if an acl is used, netbios explorers won't be
filtered
> > so that with icannotreach more traffic is actually filtered?
> >
> > I'm trying to understand how the wording of the question would lead me
to
> > use one method over the other.
> >
> > Tim
>
> If the other peer is not aware of what you specifically can or can not do,
> then what would prevent that peer from asking you questions? By providing
> icanreach/icannotreach information, then it cuts down on the queries the
> peer will send to you.
>
> Based on my experience with various practice labs, it seems the things to
> key off of are understanding whether or not the peer at the other end of
the
> dlsw needs to be aware of what the router you are configuring is capable
of.
> Understanding the options that icanreach/icannotreach offer, helps me make
> the decisions when looking at 'what am I trying to accomplish and what are
> the tools at my disposal'.
>
> You bring up a good point that I seem to spend a lot of time on. If I have
> more than one way to do something, how do I know which option best fits
the
> task at hand.
>
> -chris
>
> > Subject: Re: Dlsw filtering
> >
> >
> > > > Hi guys,
> > > >
> > > > In a situation where there are only 2 dlsw peers, A and B, and you
> want
> > to
> > > > prevent, for example, netbios traffic from A to B, can this
> > > > be done by both of the following methods:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Configure on A an acl that deny's netbios traffic & allows
> everything
> > > else
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2) Configure on B the command icannotreach F0
> > > >
> > > > To me these 2 methods seem functionally equivalent and I'd like to
> know
> > if
> > > > anyone knows otherwise.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think you are correct in saying that they both accomplish the
> filtering
> > > equally well. But the icanreach/icannotreach feature provides the
> ability
> > to
> > > share with those capabilities with the peer. So if the desire is to
get
> a
> > > peer to cache the information and reduce explorer traffic, then the
> > > icanreach/icannotreach offers more than simply local filtering.
> > >
> > > -chris
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 06 2004 - 17:11:43 GMT-3