At 4:14 PM -0400 8/12/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Did you see the movie Pi? :)
>

No, but I like pi with coffee.  It's just rarely on my blueprint...I 
mean, diet.

>
>At 6:16 PM +0000 8/12/02, John Neiberger wrote:
>>Good point!  Forgive me, I'd only had one cup of coffee when I wrote
>>that.  Usually I need at least three before my explainer works
>>correctly.
>>
>>John
>
>
>You bring up an interesting question.  Could we have predicted our
>industry crash by monitoring coffee consumption by accountants,
>vendors, or venture capitalists, etc.?  There _ought_ to be a
>correlation.
>
>>
>>>>>   "Howard C. Berkowitz"  8/12/02 11:39:12 AM >>>
>>At 4:35 PM +0000 8/12/02, John Neiberger wrote:
>>>You're putting too much thought into this.  :-)  The ip keyword will
>>>match any ip packet regardless of the transport layer protocol being
>>>used.  You use the tcp, udp, and icmp keywords when you want to be
>>even
>>>more specific.
>>>
>>>HTH,
>>>John
>>>
>>>>>>    "maine dude"  8/12/02 10:16:19 AM >>>
>>>Please help... In the example :access-list 101 deny tcp host
>>>172.16.3.10
>>>172.16.1.0 0.0.0.255 eq ftpaccess-list 101 permit ip any any Do the
>>>terms
>>>"tcp" and "ip" refer to the individual protocols or the stack ? I
>>>assume
>>>they refer to the individual protocols as you could substitute them
>>>with
>>>"udp" or "icmp" but then surely the last statement would allow only
>>>the
>>>individual "ip" protocol and therefore all other packets such as tcp
>>,
>>>udp,
>>>icmp would be filtered. Or does tcp , udp , icmp get through because
>>it
>>>is
>>>encapsulated in ip ? ( I hate the OSI model )  -DJ
>>
>>Trust me. IP designers did not have OSI compliance in mind.
>>
>>And to be picky, John, ICMP isn't a transport protocol. It is a
>  >control/management protocol at the network layer.




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=51262&t=51235
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to