It's unclear to me what the difference is between these 2 acl statements , could anyone elaborate. The reason I'm asking this is on a outbound acl using the 2nd entry listed and we are not seeing anything on the acl counters when he comes thru yet if we put a deny all at the beginning of the list he is blocked. I am wondering if the syntax is wrong and actually should be the first entry listed below , or are there any reasons why the acl counters would not be imcrementing , the user is going to telnet as verified thru the cache flows .
allow any 192.98.97.x host with a source port of 23 to access the host 188.8.131.52 on any port.
the second says
allow any 192.98.97.x host on any port to talk to host 184.108.40.206 on port 23.
I believe your access list is working but you don't see the access-list counters going up because the 6500 processes the acl in hardware on the PFC. We have access-lists outbound on some of our vlan interfaces on our 6500's and we know they work but the acl counters never increment.
Ok ,the original entry appears to be correct then because the destination port is telnet , why doesn't the counters increment , the interface is on a serial port on a flexwan card and the access list is applied to a sub interface . Any ideas ????
This is actually a pretty cool feature, i didn't even know it existed until I was looking for a solution to advertise a subnet (prefix in BGP talk), only if a certain condition existed. This is exactly what conditional advertisements does
j ai une question j ai achete un routeur cisco 887VA-k9 , je le configuré avec la configuration ci- dessous
si je le lier avec mon pc portable sur l un de ses ports directement ça marche toute est bien ( la connexion internet + m...
Attached policy provides CLI access to the Cisco 4G router over text messaging. Two files are in the attached .tar file:
2. PDF with instructions on how to load and use the .tcl file.