From: Niche (jackyliu419@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 21:57:46 GMT-3
Yes, that's exactly what pop up in mind when I see the wording, but when I
review the workbook solution that posted by the Victor. That's access-list
actually allowing that specific neighbor (R2 ip address) eigrp packet to
pass throught that interface. So.. that made me wondering ... was the
question actually ask "not accept any 'OTHER' eigrp packet except R2".
If the above assumption is true, then using distribute-list gateway is kinda
more formal method from configuration wise post of view... I think?
Just a thought..
Cheers~
Jacky
On 10/27/05, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
>
> Y'all are amusing...
> You are still "accepting packets" at this point. I'd have to look at the
> design of the whole lab to further discuss the idea of 'why' you may want
to
> do that or not, but just based on wording I would look at the solution
given
> and say you aren't supposed to have a neighbor there.
> Perhaps the Brians' will chime in. it's their lab! ;)
> Scott
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Niche [mailto:jackyliu419@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:46 PM
> *To:* Scott Morris
> *Cc:* Victor Cappuccio; Cisco certification
> *Subject:* Re: is this acceptable?
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Just wanna ask Scott if I use "distribute-list gateway" is another
> acception solution to this question.
>
> Cheers~
> Jacky
>
> On 10/27/05, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, the key would be "accept any packets". In your method, you aren't
> > accepting any ROUTES, but you do have an EIGRP neighbor relationship and
> > therefore are getting packets.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Victor Cappuccio
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:18 PM
> > To: Cisco certification
> > Subject: is this acceptable?
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > If I have a EIGRP neighbor relationship between 2 Routers in a NBMA
> > Network
> > in AS 10, and the wording indicates that In order to prevent routing
> > issues
> > over this Network, ensure that R1 does not accept any EIGRP packets on
> > the
> > NBMA Interface
> >
> > Ok the topology is like this
> >
> > R1 --| NBMA |-- R2
> >
> > I think that a valid solution could be:
> >
> > Rack1R1#show run | be router eigrp
> > router eigrp 10
> > network 54.0.0.0 <http://54.0.0.0>
> > metric weights 0 3 1 1 1 0
> > distance 90 54.1.6.254 <http://54.1.6.254> 0.0.0.0 <http://0.0.0.0>
> > ! Where 54.1.6.254 <http://54.1.6.254> is Router 2
> > distance 255 0.0.0.0 <http://0.0.0.0>
255.255.255.255<http://255.255.255.255>
> > ! Deny every thing to be installed in the Rtable.
> > no auto-summary
> >
> > The solution that appers in the WB (IE Lab 5 Tasks 5.23-5.25.-I'm not
> > saying
> > that is wrong)
> >
> > access-list 102 permit eigrp host 54.1.6.254 <http://54.1.6.254> any
> > access-list 102 deny eigrp
> > any any access-list 102 permit ip any any log
> >
> > interface Serial0/0
> > ip address 54.1.6.6 <http://54.1.6.6> 255.255.255.0<http://255.255.255.0>
> > ip access-group 102 in
> >
> > So my question now if the First method is acceptable?
> > Regards
> > Victor.
> >
> > --
> > Victor Cappuccio
> > cvictor@protokolgroup.com
> > .O.
> > ..O
> > OOO
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 22:00:54 GMT-3