Great explanation Steve--makes complete sense NOW. I'm beginning to see that 
the 
questions, while straight forward, require you to really sit down and examine 
the full context of what they are asking. Thanks for taking a look at this.




________________________________
From: "Di Bias, Steve" <[email protected]>
To: Winston Lee <[email protected]>; CCIE <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 10:52:08 PM
Subject: RE: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol 1 Lab 9 Task 9.19


Hey Winston,
 
You were thinking outside the box on this one however I think you would have 
lost points. 

 
The task specifically states that we need to “Secure VLAN 12 so that any router 
added in the future will not be able to “see” EIGRP multicast packets “or” form 
neighbor relationships with existing routers”
 
The key words here are “see” and “or” and your configs only satisfy half of 
this 
requirement. I just labbed this one up using your configuration and then added 
R4’s interface to VLAN 12 (150.100.12.4/24) Since you are still allowing 
150.100.12.1 and 150.100.12.2 to send multicasts to 224.0.0.10 new routers 
coming online will be able to see these. 

 
So bringing R4 online and running “debug ip packet” clearly shows that R1 and 
R2 
are sending multicast packets to 224.0.0.10
 
*Mar  3 12:17:20.089: IP: s=150.100.12.1 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len 
60, rcvd 2
*Mar  3 12:17:21.261: IP: s=150.100.12.2 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len 
60, rcvd 2
*Mar  3 12:17:25.069: IP: s=150.100.12.1 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len 
60, rcvd 2
*Mar  3 12:17:26.029: IP: s=150.100.12.2 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len 
60, rcvd 2
 
So while you may be able to stop neighbors from properly forming with your 
configs, anyone on VLAN 12 will still be able to see the multicast traffic 
destined to 224.0.0.10
 
HTH
 
Steve Di Bias
 
From:[email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Winston Lee
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:05 PM
To: CCIE
Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol 1 Lab 9 Task 9.19
 
Hello All,

9.19 Secure VLAN 12 so that any router added in the future will not be able to 
see EIGRP multicast packets or form neighbor relationships with existing 
routers.

The DSG proposes putting a VACL and use the neighbor command between R1 and R2 
to accomplish this. I used a different method through a VACL alone and was 
wondering if the way I did it was valid (would I have got points for this on 
the 
lab)? 



Cat3550-1#sh ip access-lists 101
Extended IP access list 101
    10 deny eigrp host 150.100.12.1 host 224.0.0.10 (68 matches)
    20 deny eigrp host 150.100.12.2 host 224.0.0.10 (31 matches)
    30 permit eigrp any host 224.0.0.10

Cat3550-1#sh vlan access-map NOEIGRP
Vlan access-map "NOEIGRP"  10
 Match clauses:
    ip  address: 101
  Action:
    drop
Vlan access-map "NOEIGRP"  20
  Match clauses:
  Action:
    forward

Cat3550-1#sh run | i filter
vlan filter NOEIGRP vlan-list 12
 


UHS Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is 
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution 
of this information is prohibited, and may be punishable by law. If this was 
sent to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 
copies of the original message. 



      
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Reply via email to