From: Raj Bansal (ccie_study06@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat May 26 2007 - 15:17:37 ART
Folks:
Does rip have issues dealing with extended acls or expanded acls.?
If I want to control a route, it seems that extended acls and expanded acls doesn't work. It seems to work with standard acls and prefix list. Reason I was trying to use an extended acl is to control the summary route being sent out with a /16.
int serial0/0
ip summary address rip 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0
router rip
distribute list 10 out serial0/0 <---- works
distribute list 101 out serial0/0 <----doesn't work
distribute list prefix-list rip out serial0/0 <---works
distribute list 2201 out serial0/0 <---doesn't work
I can discount the expanded acls. Seems its used mostly in bgp sceanarios. But what's up with extended acl?
One might argue why not use just the standard acl. But what if I have a route that is redistributed into rip and its a /32 (ospf point to multipoint with a /31). Now I match on the network and it gets leaked out to rip peer(neighbor).
access-list 10 permit 172.16.0.0 0.0.0.0
access-list 101 permit ip 172.16.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 0.0.0.0
prefix-list rip permit 172.16.0.0/16.
Thanks.
Raj
---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 01 2007 - 06:55:22 ART