From: Carlos Trujillo (carlos.trujillo.jimenez@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2008 - 09:07:50 ART
Yourpal.
You can apply the "no ip unreachables" In the interface close to the source
of the packets... in your example
fa 0/1.
2008/3/24, nagendra kumar <nagendranainar@yahoo.co.in>:
>
> Emil,
>
> I guess your config will not affect R2's ping request as the
> incoming interface for R2 ping packet is f0/1 which doesnt have any
> ACL configured. You may have to configure the access-group in f0/1 to
> get things into effect.
>
> Your config will only affect the packets coming through f0/0 interface.
>
> Regards,
> Nagendra
>
> YourPal <dearprudence28@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Group,
>
> I thought of this scenario but have no access to my lab routers to test it
> at this moment.
>
> Say, R1 has the following config:
>
> !
> int fa0/0
> ip add 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.0
> ip access-gr 100 in
> !
> int f0/1
> ip add 172.16.2.1 255.255.255.0
> !
> access-list 100 deny icmp any any
> access-list 100 permit ip any any
> !
>
> Say, R2 pings R1's IP address 172.16.1.1 and the packet enters R1's Fa0/0
> interface. And say R1's route to R2 via Fa0/1 interface.
>
> Understand that R1 will send an ICMP Type 3 Unreachable (Administratively
> Prohibited code) message back to R2 because its ACL denies the packet. In
> my
> case, I want R1 not to send unreachable messages back to the source. Which
> interface should I apply the "no ip unreachables" command? Fa0/0 or Fa0/1?
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> BR,
> Emil
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 07:53:54 ART