Line 6 should be there.
Line 5 define subset of line 6 with type of deny and is widest range in
prior lines.
should stay.
Line 4 source address is in range of 5 with type of permit. destination
address out of
range of 5, so, it equivalence to: permit x.x.x.x 0.0.31.255 y.y.y.y
0.0.0.63. This lin
3 if you don't count
the "any any" permit statement.
From: Jeremy Felt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 3:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Access List problem. [7:12525]
After thinking on it a bit more, the wildcard mask I would use
al Message -
From: "Jeremy Felt"
To:
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Access List problem. [7:12525]
...[snip message].
> In order for the second statement to be taken out, the third statement
needs
> to be modified so that traffic from "172.22.32.0-172.22
access to any nodes from "192.168.18.64-192.168.18.127". I don't know if
this can be done by using a wildcard mask though, and I'm not able to figure
it out.
Sorry about the length, hopefully somebody can post the correct answer this
time. :-p
- Jeremy Felt
[EMAIL PROT
The first 3 conditions definitely don't overlap, so the deny is all you
need, but the next 2 lines kind of overlap, and using only the deny
statement (line 5) would block traffic that the prior permit statement
(line 4) would have allowed. The only way to get rid of one of the lines
is to see i
True, but it won't block the specific addresses inside the subnets he
allowed all from above the deny all.
- Original Message -
From: "no mail"
To:
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: Access List problem. [7:12525]
> I like Jeremy's answer. It se
Oh wait...4th line down is a permit so line 3 stays. I see it in 4 lines.
Anybody else see it differently?
- Original Message -
From: "Allen May"
To:
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: Access List problem. [7:12525]
> I'll try ;)
>
> Let'
I like Jeremy's answer. It seems like the permit all at the end makes
everything else except the denies redundant.
""Jeremy Felt"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have a familiar feeling that I'm going to be completely off on this one,
> but hopefully the corr
I have a familiar feeling that I'm going to be completely off on this one,
but hopefully the correct answer will be posted so I can figure out why.
As long as the correct "deny" statements are there, it seems to me that the
other "permit" statements would be redundant when used with the "permit a
I'll try ;)
Let's see:
172.anything from 10.anything
172.22.30.95 from 10.11.12.anything (redundant from above line)
172.22.30.anything denied from 192.168.18.27
172.22.0.0 0.0.31.255 from 192.168.18.anything (denied 1 line above)
172.22.anything deny 192.168.18.64 0.0.0.63 (taken care of 2 lines
i it working or not
what u want to allow disallow forget this1
-Original Message-
From: Robert Fowler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Access List problem. [7:12525]
Someone sent me this and I just can't figure it out. I've b
11 matches
Mail list logo
