Troubleshooting Exercises

1:	A router has the following configuration: routerigrp1 network10.0.0.0 distribute-list1inEthernet5/1 ! access-list1deny0.0.0.0255.255.255.255 access-list1permitany The intention is to deny the incoming default route at interface E5/1 and to permit all other routes incoming on that interface. However, no routes are being accepted on E5/1. What is wrong?
2:	Grimwig in Figure 13.12 has the following configuration: routerospf1 redistributeripmetric100 network192.168.5.10.0.0.0area0 distance255 distance1100.0.0.0255.255.255.2551 ! routerrip redistributeospf1metric2 network192.168.6.0 distance255 distance120192.168.6.10.0.0.02 ! ipclassless access-list1permit192.168.3.0 access-list1permit192.168.4.0 access-list2permit192.168.1.0 access-list2permit192.168.2.0 What effect will this configuration have on the routes at Grimwig?
3:	The routers in Figure 13.22 are running OSPF. Router B has the following configuration: routerospf50 network0.0.0.0255.255.255.255area1 distribute-list1in ! access-list1deny172.17.0.0 access-list1permitany Figure 13.22. The internetwork for Troubleshooting Exercises 3 and 4. The intention is to prevent routers B and C from having a route entry for network 172.17.0.0. This plan seems to be working at router B, but router C still has an entry for 172.17.0.0. Why?
4:	The routers in Figure 13.22 are running RIP. Router B has the following configuration: routerrip network172.19.0.0 network172.20.0.0 distribute-list1outEthernet0 distribute-list2outEthernet1 ! access-list1permit172.18.0.0 access-list2permit172.22.0.0 The intention is to advertise only network 172.22.0.0 to router A and to advertise only network 172.18.0.0 to router C. However, A and C have no RIP entries in their routing table. What is wrong?