From: M S (michaelgstout@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2007 - 01:07:40 ART
Hello
I am curious about these two versions of a multicast boundry access-list.
I've been told that some multicast access-lists, are not parsed correctly
when deny statments or cidr blocks are included.
does anybody know which types of multicast lists don't work properly, is
it the multicast boundry list that behave this way?
Also, for testing purposes, would creating a sparse mode topology and
using the igmp join-group 239.1.1.1 on one of the routers prove this
concept if i am unable to ping 239.1.1.1
Version 1 is suspect
access-list 39 remark prevent the spread of administrativly scoped
addresses
access-list 39 remark permit multicast addresses 232.0.0.0/5
access-list 39 deny 239.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
access-list 39 perm 232.0.0.0 7.255.255.255
version 2
access-list 39 permit 232.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
access-list 39 permit 233.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
access-list 39 permit 234.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
access-list 39 permit 235.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
access-list 39 permit 236.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
access-list 39 permit 237.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
access-list 39 permit 238.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
end
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by
Experian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 07:38:47 ART