From: gladston@br.ibm.com
Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 - 16:25:11 GMT-3
I saw this on an example. Isn't strange?
As an access-list would not block traffic originated on the router, and group 224.x.x.x is not propagated across a router, 224.0.0.0 would be allowed anyway.
Would you see any other point?
int e0
ip access-group RETURN ou
!
ip access-list extended RETURN
permit tcp any any established
permit udp any 224.0.0.0 31.255.255.255
The same source has also this:
interface bri0/0
ppp multilink
ppp multilink interleave
Does it make sense having 'ppp multilink interleave' and not having 'ppp multilink fragment x'?
The task was to make the two channels looks like a single large channel.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 03 2005 - 10:31:25 GMT-3