From: Narbik Kocharians (narbikk@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2007 - 02:54:25 ART
no worries mate, let me know if you need some examples of the configs.
On 8/2/07, Peter Kingston <kingstonp.ccie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was under the impression the commands were there but they didn't work.
>
> I may have got this confused with policy routing and prefix-lists.
>
> my apologies
>
>
>
> On 8/2/07, Narbik Kocharians <narbikk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Prefix-lists, YES they are
> >
> > >
> > > Studying my CCIE
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/2/07, Toh Soon, Lim <tohsoon28@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > I have this lab scenario. R1 learns the following RIP routes:
> > > >
> > > > R1#sh ip ro ri
> > > > R 192.168.4.0/24 [120/1] via 150.50.200.254, 00:00:07,
> > > FastEthernet0/1
> > > > R 192.168.1.0/24 [120/1] via 150.50.200.254, 00:00:07,
> > > FastEthernet0/1
> > > > R 192.168.2.0/24 [120/1] via 150.50.200.254 , 00:00:07,
> > > FastEthernet0/1
> > > > R 192.168.3.0/24 [120/1] via 150.50.200.254, 00:00:07,
> > > FastEthernet0/1
> > > > Question 1
> > > > ---------------
> > > > Filter the 192.168.4.0. My first thought of the solution is as
> > > follows:
> > > >
> > > > !
> > > > access-list 1 deny 192.168.4.0
> > > > access-list 1 permit any
> > > > !
> > > > router rip
> > > > distribute-list 1 in Fas0/1
> > > > !
> > > >
> > > > It works. My practice of matching routes when using standard ACL is
> > > > without
> > > > the wildcard mask, i.e. it defaults to 0.0.0.0. But I've seen some
> > > people
> > > > configure the mask e.g. "access-list 1 deny 192.168.4.0 0.0.0.255".
> > > I
> > > > don't
> > > > see any problems with both methods in this case because the received
> > > > prefix
> > > > addresses will be Logical ANDed to the wildcard mask and then match
> > > to the
> > > > address in the ACL. Though I always think that the latter method is
> > > > typically for matching traffic, e.g. ACLs applied to interfaces for
> > > packet
> > > > filtering. Do correct me if my concept is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > I could also configure using prefix-list:
> > > >
> > > > !
> > > > ip prefix-list BLOCK4 seq 5 deny 192.168.4.0/24
> > > > ip prefix-list BLOCK4 seq 10 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32
> > > > !
> > > > router rip
> > > > distribute-list prefix BLOCK4 in Fas0/1
> > > > !
> > > >
> > > > Kindly clear my doubts on which method conforms to best practice and
> > > > should
> > > > be typically used in the lab exam.
> > > >
> > > > Question 2
> > > > ---------------
> > > > If neighboring routers are sending RIPv1, make sure R1 does not pay
> > > > attention to updates.
> > > >
> > > > I solved this by configuring "ver 2" under "router rip", i.e. R1
> > > will
> > > > send/receive only v2 updates. Mixing RIPv1 and RIPv2 operations can
> > > > sometimes make me very confused. Is it really important to know
> > > RIPv1 in
> > > > details?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > B.Rgds,
> > > > Lim TS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Narbik Kocharians
> > CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security)
> > CCSI# 30832
> > www.Net-WorkBooks.com <http://www.net-workbooks.com/>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Peter Kingston
> Studying my CCIE
>
-- Narbik Kocharians CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security) CCSI# 30832 www.Net-WorkBooks.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:09 ART