yup -----Original Message----- From: Puckette, Larry (TIFPC) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 25 July 2003 1:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NOBODY emails [7:72997]
Is anybody else receiving multiple emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that are empty?? Larry Puckette Network Analyst Temple Inland [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512-434-1838 Where there is no idol but money and power, there is no hope for integrity. -----Original Message----- From: Maximus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Vty access class [7:72990] I believe the standard ACL should be enough since your already specifying transport input ssh on line vty 0 4. Just my $0.02 Jablonski, Michael wrote: > > I'm having a bit of trouble with extended access-lists for vty access. > Basically I'd like to setup an extended access list that only > allows ssh > access from certain IPs, but after creating the list and > applying it to the > VTY I lose access. But if I use a standard acl only allowing > certain IPs it > works fine... > > ip access-list extended local_shell > permit tcp host 192.168.1.2 host 192.168.1.1 eq 22 > > vty 0 4 > access-class local_shell in > transport input ssh > > Is the standard enough & is the above over-kill? > > Thanx, > mkj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73006&t=72997 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
