Re: Confused by the access-list question

2000-12-26 Thread lishengtao
t. ( 172.16.16.0/20 and > 172.16.32.0/20 ) > therefore, > the router will apply a MATCH and deal to those packets as appropriate. > > for A, 172.16.1.1 is not in the 172.16.16.0/20 or 172.16.32.0/20 networks > therefore, > there is NO MATCH in the access-list statement > so no ac

Re: Confused by the access-list question

2000-12-25 Thread lishengtao
because the 172.16.1.1 address is not included in your access-list > statement. > > the addresses that would be affected are 172.16.16.0/20 to 172.16.32.0/20 > and 172.16.1.1/20 is in another network > > R, > MariaD > > > ""lishengtao"" <[EM

Confused by the access-list question

2000-12-24 Thread lishengtao
The following is an access-list entered on a Cisco router: access-list 135 deny tcp 172.16.16.0 0.0.15.255 172.16.32.0 0.0.15.255 eq telnet access-list 135 permit ip any any br>Which of the following would not apply if this access-list is used to control incoming packets on ethernet 0? A. addres

Confused by access-list

2000-12-24 Thread lishengtao
The following is an access-list entered on a Cisco router: access-list 135 deny tcp 172.16.16.0 0.0.15.255 172.16.32.0 0.0.15.255 eq telnet access-list 135 permit ip any any br>Which of the following would not apply if this access-list is used to control incoming packets on ethernet 0? A. addre