Re: Route Poisoning and Poison Reverse?? [7:4666]
Hi, As far as I understand it, having just read both the Sybex and ICND CCNA books, it's as follows: "Route poisoning attempts to eliminate routing loops caused by inconsistent updates." If a router's link to a network goes down, it "poisons" the link by putting in a table entry for the network as having infinite cost, with RIP it is a metric of 16 that does this. Once the other router receives this table update, it sends a "poison reverse" back to the original router stating that the network is unreachable. This process overrides the normal split horizon rules. An attempt from a first timer, Jeremy Felt, CCNA - Original Message - From: Brian To: Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 10:54 AM Subject: Re: Route Poisoning and Poison Reverse?? [7:4666] > Perhaps we're talking about split horizon and poison reverse?? > > Bri > > - Original Message - > From: "Michel Lavondes" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 8:39 AM > Subject: Re: Route Poisoning and Poison Reverse?? [7:4666] > > > > On Wed, 16 May 2001, Aki Christopoulos wrote: > > > > > I understand that both (Route Poisoning and Poison reverse) are used > with > > > Distance Vector Routing Protocols, but I am not able to get a clear > > > definition > > > of Route Poisoning.. > > > > > > What is the difference between the two?? > > > > Never heard route poisoning myself, but I would assume it means the same > > as poison reverse. Did you see both used in the same document, or by the > > same author? > > > > -- > > "Someone approached me and asked me to teach a javascript course. I was > > about to decline, saying that my complete ignorance of the subject made > > me unsuitable, then I thought again, that maybe it doesn't, as driving > > people away from it is a desirable outcome." --Me > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=4715&t=4666 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Access List problem. [7:12525]
I have a familiar feeling that I'm going to be completely off on this one, but hopefully the correct answer will be posted so I can figure out why. As long as the correct "deny" statements are there, it seems to me that the other "permit" statements would be redundant when used with the "permit all" statement at the end. access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.30.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.18.27 0.0.0.0 access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.0.0 0.0.255.255 192.168.18.64 0.0.0.63 access-list 101 permit ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 Looking forward to the answer, - Jeremy Felt [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Robert Fowler" To: Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 2:05 PM Subject: Access List problem. [7:12525] > Someone sent me this and I just can't figure it out. I've been staring at it > and trying things since last week. Any ideas? > > > Jeff Doyle says this access-list can be rewritten with 3 lines and still > provide the same functionality. Let me know if you guys figure out: > > access-list 101 permit ip 172.22.30.6 0.0.0.0 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 > access-list 101 permit ip 172.22.30.95 0.0.0.0 10.11.12.0 0.0.0.255 > access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.30.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.18.27 0.0.0.0 > access-list 101 permit ip 172.22.0.0 0.0.31.255 192.168.18.0 0.0.0.255 > access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.0.0 0.0.255.255 192.168.18.64 0.0.0.63 > access-list 101 permit ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 > > Have fun... > > > Thank You, > Robert Fowler Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=12535&t=12525 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Access List problem. [7:12525]
Thanks for the vote of support. I'm still very new at this. However, I have this habit of second guessing myself all the time, and I'm pretty sure my response was incorrect. The first two permit statements can be considered redundant because there are no deny statements leading to the "10.0.0.0" network. So that means the 3 statements relating to network "192.168.18.0" need to be reworked into 2. The first statement denies ip traffic from "172.22.30.0-172.22.30.255" access to the node "192.168.18.27". The second statement permits ip traffic from "172.22.0.0-172.22.31.255" to access any nodes from "192.168.18.0-192.168.18.255", this exludes the traffic denied already above. The third statement denies ip traffic from "172.22.0.0-172.22.255.255" access to any nodes from "192.168.18.64-192.168.18.127". If the second statement is taken out, then the third statement denies it before it is able to get to the permit all statement. In order for the second statement to be taken out, the third statement needs to be modified so that traffic from "172.22.32.0-172.22.255.255" is denied access to any nodes from "192.168.18.64-192.168.18.127". I don't know if this can be done by using a wildcard mask though, and I'm not able to figure it out. Sorry about the length, hopefully somebody can post the correct answer this time. :-p - Jeremy Felt [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "no mail" To: Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 3:41 PM Subject: Re: Access List problem. [7:12525] > I like Jeremy's answer. It seems like the permit all at the end makes > everything else except the denies redundant. > > > ""Jeremy Felt"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I have a familiar feeling that I'm going to be completely off on this one, > > but hopefully the correct answer will be posted so I can figure out why. > > > > As long as the correct "deny" statements are there, it seems to me that > the > > other "permit" statements would be redundant when used with the "permit > all" > > statement at the end. > > > > access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.30.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.18.27 0.0.0.0 > > access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.0.0 0.0.255.255 192.168.18.64 0.0.0.63 > > access-list 101 permit ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 > > > > > > Looking forward to the answer, > > > > - Jeremy Felt > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Robert Fowler" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 2:05 PM > > Subject: Access List problem. [7:12525] ...[snipped message]... > > > access-list 101 permit ip 172.22.30.6 0.0.0.0 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 > > > access-list 101 permit ip 172.22.30.95 0.0.0.0 10.11.12.0 0.0.0.255 > > > access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.30.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.18.27 0.0.0.0 > > > access-list 101 permit ip 172.22.0.0 0.0.31.255 192.168.18.0 0.0.0.255 > > > access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.0.0 0.0.255.255 192.168.18.64 0.0.0.63 > > > access-list 101 permit ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 > 255.255.255.255 > > > > > > Have fun... > > > > > > > > > Thank You, > > > Robert Fowler Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=12549&t=12525 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Access List problem. [7:12525]
After thinking on it a bit more, the wildcard mask I would use if it were legal would be 0.0.223.255 This seems to accomplish the task, though according to my knowledge, it's not useable. So now I'm with Allen in 4 lines, not 3. - Jeremy Felt [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Felt" To: Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Access List problem. [7:12525] ...[snip message]. > In order for the second statement to be taken out, the third statement needs > to be modified so that traffic from "172.22.32.0-172.22.255.255" is denied > access to any nodes from "192.168.18.64-192.168.18.127". I don't know if > this can be done by using a wildcard mask though, and I'm not able to figure > it out. > > Sorry about the length, hopefully somebody can post the correct answer this > time. :-p > > - Jeremy Felt > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - Original Message - > From: "no mail" > To: > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 3:41 PM > Subject: Re: Access List problem. [7:12525] > > > > I like Jeremy's answer. It seems like the permit all at the end makes > > everything else except the denies redundant. > > > > > > ""Jeremy Felt"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I have a familiar feeling that I'm going to be completely off on this > one, > > > but hopefully the correct answer will be posted so I can figure out why. > > > > > > As long as the correct "deny" statements are there, it seems to me that > > the > > > other "permit" statements would be redundant when used with the "permit > > all" > > > statement at the end. > > > > > > access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.30.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.18.27 0.0.0.0 > > > access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.0.0 0.0.255.255 192.168.18.64 0.0.0.63 > > > access-list 101 permit ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 > 255.255.255.255 > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to the answer, > > > > > > - Jeremy Felt > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Robert Fowler" > > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 2:05 PM > > > Subject: Access List problem. [7:12525] > > ...[snipped message]... > > > > > access-list 101 permit ip 172.22.30.6 0.0.0.0 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 > > > > access-list 101 permit ip 172.22.30.95 0.0.0.0 10.11.12.0 0.0.0.255 > > > > access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.30.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.18.27 0.0.0.0 > > > > access-list 101 permit ip 172.22.0.0 0.0.31.255 192.168.18.0 0.0.0.255 > > > > access-list 101 deny ip 172.22.0.0 0.0.255.255 192.168.18.64 0.0.0.63 > > > > access-list 101 permit ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 > > 255.255.255.255 > > > > > > > > Have fun... > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank You, > > > > Robert Fowler Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=12552&t=12525 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Access -list problem, my solution [7:12760]
I don't think 0.0.224.255 will work as a wildcard mask. 1110 = 224 This would allow the first 3 bits to be on or off, but would force every bit after 32 to be off all the time. As far as I can see, it would block access to every odd number and some others that fall within the 18.64 - 18.127 range. The 3rd bit being on would allow the "32" bit to be on or off, which would mean addresses below 172.22.0.x would be able to access the range. Again, I'm still new at this so let me know if I'm wrong with that... - Jeremy Felt [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Robert Fowler" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 10:46 PM Subject: Access -list problem, my solution [7:12760] > I've been up 3 hours working on this and my brain is fried. Right before > that last synapses died I think I came up with the answer. Here is my > worksheet. Let me know what you think. > [snip] > > deny ip 172.22.30.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.18.27 0.0.0.0 access to 18.27 > deny ip 172.22.32.0 0.0.224.255 192.168.18.64 0.0.0.63 and above from accessing 18.64 - 18.127 > permit ip 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 everything else. > > > > > > Thank You, > Robert Fowler > Network Administrator Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=12804&t=12760 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Way OT: Interesting Date today [7:21675]
Still OT Next ones: 01-02-2010 11-02-2011 02-02-2020 12-02-2021 03-02-2030 04-02-2040 05-02-2050 06-02-2060 07-02-2070 08-02-2080 09-02-2090 10-12-2101 Sorry, couldn't help it. I love useless information. - Jeremy Felt - Original Message - From: "John Neiberger" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 10:03 AM Subject: Way OT: Interesting Date today [7:21675] > 10-02-2001... It's a palindrome! When was the last date where this > occurred? Here at work we think it was 08-31-1380. When will the next > one be? :-) Sorry for the OT post, I just thought this was amusing. > > Back to the morning coffee > > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=21695&t=21675 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fw: Nationwide Toll Free Outage [7:21859]
Hi all, This message was forwarded to me, I was just wondering if anybody knew anything further about it. I know not everybody is affected, because we are still getting limited calls on 800 numbers, but we aren't able to dial any at all. - Jeremy > The centralized database (known as "SMS") that handles the routing for all > toll free numbers in the US is down, so consequently all toll free lines in > the country are non-operational. This is *not* carrier-specific... it is > affecting all long distance carriers. > > Unfortunately, I have no additional information at this time. I will pass > along additional information when I receive it. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=21859&t=21859 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nationwide Toll Free Outage [7:21859]
Where are you located? We've been hearing reports that it is mostly affecting the midwest, possibly the west coast, but that the east cost is fine. - Jeremy - Original Message - From: "B.J. Wilson" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Nationwide Toll Free Outage [7:21859] > Looks like this database doesn't handle 888 numbers, however - I just called > one with no problem. > > > ----- Original Message - > From: "Jeremy Felt" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 10:45 AM > Subject: Fw: Nationwide Toll Free Outage [7:21859] > > > > Hi all, > > > > This message was forwarded to me, I was just wondering if anybody knew > > anything further about it. I know not everybody is affected, because we > are > > still getting limited calls on 800 numbers, but we aren't able to dial any > > at all. > > > > - Jeremy > > > > > The centralized database (known as "SMS") that handles the routing for > all > > > toll free numbers in the US is down, so consequently all toll free lines > > in > > > the country are non-operational. This is *not* carrier-specific... it > is > > > affecting all long distance carriers. > > > > > > Unfortunately, I have no additional information at this time. I will > pass > > > along additional information when I receive it. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=21871&t=21859 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
