I'd say there's no hits in that case, I've wondered why route-maps never show byte hits at the bottom when running show route-map command is run and when you know the maps are doing their job :/
-- BR Tony Sent from my iPad On 27 Jun 2013, at 14:33, Joe S <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
