Load-balancing in a triangle ?

Hello, Could anybody comment the following problem: -I have three Cisco routers, (POPA, POPB and CUSTOMER - exact models are not important). <---uplink_1[POPA]---2Mbps-[POPB]uplink_2> ! ! !

Do fragments always match extended access-list ?

Hello everybody, I recently faced one strange problem with Ciscos. If we have extended access-list: access-list 101 permit tcp from any to any eq 80 access-list 101 deny ip from any to any how does Cisco router processes fragmented packets ? The problem is, only the first fragment with offse

Do fragments always match extended access-list ?

Hello everybody, I recently faced one strange problem with Ciscos. If we have extended access-list: access-list 101 permit tcp from any to any eq 80 access-list 101 deny ip from any to any how does Cisco router processes fragmented packets ? The problem is, only the first fragment with offse

RE: Do fragments always match extended access-list ?

From: ElephantChild [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> So IMHO in Cisco IOS ACLs there is an implicit rule like this: >> >> access-list 101 permit ip from any to any fragments >> ! "fragments" is an imaginary option, Cisco doesn't understand it in fact >> >> Is it true ? >It used to be. In late 19

RE: Do fragments always match extended access-list ?

> Alex, > If you are using a Cache engine (Cisco cache engine) > Go to the interface that is connected to the Internet and > redirect all http traffic to the interface where your cache > engine resides. Yes, I have already done this (I use Squid, but Squid 2.3 supports Cisco WCCP v.1). As soon

RE: Do fragments always match extended access-list ?

As the final conclusion in this thread: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120cavs/120m cavs.htm Caveats for Cisco IOS 12.0 IP Routing Protocols CSCdm44976: IP access lists always permit IP fragments. There is no workaround. =