Joel Jaison-301390573
Sebika Sapkota-301387918
Jesse Nkunda-301263776
Part-2
Step-6
a. Yes
b. Yes
c. Yes
d. Yes
e. Yes
f. Yes
Part-3
Step-1
a. 100
b. 80 is the destination port
c. G0/1 and S0/0/0.
d. Out
4) The pings failed. This is because of the implicit deny any at the end of
every ACL.
Step-2
1.a WEB-Policy
b. Out
5. The pings failed. Only web traffic is allowed to exit from the
[Link]/24 network.
Part 4
Step-1
A. 2
c. Line 30.
Step-2
Joel Jaison-301390573
Sebika Sapkota-301387918
Jesse Nkunda-301263776
a.3
Step-3
a. Yes
[Link]
c. The ACLs on both R1 and R3 were still applied to their respective
interfaces with the ip access-group command.
REFLECTION
1. ACLs can unintentionally block legitimate traffic from entering or leaving a
network.
2. They both have their purpose and place in a network. A standard ACL is
easy to write and configure if you need to permit or deny all traffic. The
downside of a standard ACL is that it can only check source addresses and
has no granularity. Extended ACLs can be written to filter virtually any kind of
traffic generated. However, they can be complex to configure and
understand
3. OSPF updates originate from the serial interfaces on R1 and R3 and not
from within the LAN. ACLs filter traffic passing through the router and not
traffic sourced by the router. If an ACL had been placed on the ISP router, it
may have blocked OSPF updates between R1 and R3, as well as other router-
to-router communication. This could have resulted in loss of connectivity
between the PC-A and PC-C LANs.