What should be a simple access-list question.

Why is it that some access-lists will show the number of hits and some
won't? I have yet to see a pattern.


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:00 AM, <[email protected]>wrote:

> Send CCIE_RS mailing list submissions to
>         [email protected]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         [email protected]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         [email protected]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of CCIE_RS digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Version 5.0 Update (Bill Riley)
>    2. Re: Version 5.0 Update (Bob McCouch)
>    3. CCNP-to-CCIE Transition Kit; Route Lab 2; Task 7.6;
>       ([email protected])
>    4. Re: Version 5.0 Update ([email protected])
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:01:05 -0500
> From: Bill Riley <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Version 5.0 Update
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Any rumor from Cisco Live on a version update?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:46:57 -0400
> From: Bob McCouch <[email protected]>
> To: Bill Riley <[email protected]>
> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Version 5.0 Update
> Message-ID: <-3737896519547143256@unknownmsgid>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I wasn't at the techtorials, but word is no blueprint change was
> announced. Still v4.
>
> Bob
> --
> Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any typos.
>
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Bill Riley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Any rumor from Cisco Live on a version update?
> > _______________________________________________
> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
> please visit www.ipexpert.com
> >
> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
> >
> > http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:00:53 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> To: <[email protected]>
> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] CCNP-to-CCIE Transition Kit; Route Lab 2;
>         Task 7.6;
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> CCNP-to-CCIE Transition Kit; Route Lab 2; Task 7.6; Problem reaching
> external "ISP" networks on R9 via R2,R4,&R5. I can reach them from R6.
> Everything works as it should. Accourding to the DSG, I am only looking
> to see if the default 0.0.0.0/0 route is in the table. It does not test
> reach ability, and neither does the task say to test reach ability and
> that it should be working. I'd imagine I would want to get out of the
> network, or what's the point?
>
> Starting on R9;
> R9#sh run | sec router bgp
> router bgp 65001
>   neighbor 173.16.121.6 default-originate
>
> Then R6;
>
> R6#sh ip bgp
> BGP table version is 11, local router ID is 173.16.121.6
>     Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
> *> 0.0.0.0          170.70.255.9             0             0 65001 i
> *> 170.70.0.0/21    170.70.255.9             0             0 65001 i
> *> 173.16.100.0/22  0.0.0.0                  0         32768 i
> *> 173.16.104.0/21  0.0.0.0                  0         32768 i
> *> 173.16.112.0/21  0.0.0.0                  0         32768 i
> *> 173.16.120.0/22  0.0.0.0                  0         32768 i
> R6#sh ip route
> Gateway of last resort is 170.70.255.9 to network 0.0.0.0
> B*   0.0.0.0/0 [20/0] via 170.70.255.9, 00:08:31
> R6#
> R6(config)#router ospf 65101
> R6(config-router)#default-information originate
> R6(config-router)#end
> R6#
>
> Then I check R5;
> R5#clear ip route *
> R5#sh ip route 0.0.0.0
> Routing entry for 0.0.0.0/0, supernet
>    Known via "ospf 65101", distance 110, metric 1, candidate default
> path
>    Tag 65101, type extern 2, forward metric 64
>    Last update from 160.171.90.3 on Serial0/0/0, 00:00:02 ago
>    Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>    * 160.171.90.3, from 173.16.121.6, 00:00:02 ago, via Serial0/0/0
>        Route metric is 1, traffic share count is 1
>        Route tag 65101
>
> R5#ping 170.70.255.9
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 170.70.255.9, timeout is 2 seconds:
> ...
> Success rate is 0 percent (0/3)
> R5#ping 160.171.90.38
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 160.171.90.38, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/4/4 ms
> R5#ping 160.171.90.37
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 160.171.90.37, timeout is 2 seconds:
> .....
> Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
>
>
> I can reach the ExtraNet office over the frame relay link from the
> small office and big office. I just can't reach the R9 networks from
> ExtraNet switches, Small & Big office. The following shows reachability
> from R6 to R9's networks;
>
> R6#tclsh
> R6(tcl)#foreach address {
> +>(tcl)#160.171.90.37
> +>(tcl)#160.171.90.41
> +>(tcl)#170.70.255.9
> +>(tcl)#170.70.0.1
> +>(tcl)#170.70.1.1
> +>(tcl)#170.70.2.1
> +>(tcl)#170.70.3.1
> +>(tcl)#170.70.4.1
> +>(tcl)#170.70.5.1
> +>(tcl)#170.70.6.1
> +>(tcl)#170.70.7.9
> +>(tcl)#} { ping $address }
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 160.171.90.37, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/3/4 ms
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 160.171.90.41, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/2/4 ms
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 170.70.255.9, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/4/4 ms
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 170.70.0.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/4/4 ms
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 170.70.1.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/4/5 ms
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 170.70.2.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/3/8 ms
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 170.70.3.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/4/4 ms
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 170.70.4.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/4/5 ms
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 170.70.5.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/4/4 ms
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 170.70.6.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/4/4 ms
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 170.70.7.9, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/4/4 ms
> R6(tcl)#exit
>
> I checked my answers to the DSG, they look good. I even went as far as
> to do exactly what the DSG did. And I still can't reach the networks
> that are pingable above on R6 when doing the same on R2,R4,&R5. None of
> the Cat switches can reach them either. I even tried to redistribute
> using a prefix-list to only get the default route into OSPF from BGP;
>
> !-- on R6
> ip prefix-list DEFAULT_ROUTE seq 10 permit 0.0.0.0/0
> route-map PERMIT_DEFAULT_ROUTE permit 10
>   match ip address prefix-list DEFAULT_ROUTE
>   exit
> route-map PERMIT_DEFAULT_ROUTE deny 20
> router ospf 65101
>   no default-information originate
>   redistribute bgp 65101 route-map PERMIT_DEFAULT_ROUTE subnets
>
> The default route 0.0.0.0 doesn't even show up on R2,R4,&R5. So I tried
> the following;
>
> !-- on R6
> router bgp 65101
>   neighbor 170.70.255.9 shutdown
>   exit
> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 160.171.90.37 30
> ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 160.171.90.41 30
> router ospf 65101
>   redistribute static route-map PERMIT_DEFAULT_ROUTE subnets
> exit
>
> again the default route does not show up R2,R4,&R5. any help would be
> much appreciated (even knowing that it's not supposed to work would be
> cool).
>
> -Joey
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:36:10 -0400
> From: [email protected]
> To: Bob McCouch <[email protected]>
> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Version 5.0 Update
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=us-ascii
>
> I went to the tech course on Sunday.  The word is that v5.0 will be
> announced later this calendar year. No dates were given and it was clear
> that they don't have a date yet for the announcement or for the change.  No
> specifics were released directly about changes but several hints were
> given.  The test won't change much but frame relay will probably go away
> and IPv6 will have a bigger role.  That was about all they would tell us.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Bob McCouch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I wasn't at the techtorials, but word is no blueprint change was
> > announced. Still v4.
> >
> > Bob
> > --
> > Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any typos.
> >
> > On Jun 24, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Bill Riley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Any rumor from Cisco Live on a version update?
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
> please visit www.ipexpert.com
> >>
> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
> >>
> >> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
> > _______________________________________________
> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
> please visit www.ipexpert.com
> >
> > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
> >
> > http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
>
>
> End of CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 89, Issue 25
> ***************************************
>
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs

Reply via email to