I agree with Edison that blocking the unreachable messages is a more effective way to block traceroute. In the original post Jack had the access-group as in. For this access list to work it would need to be configured for out (since the ACL now has 126.96.36.199 as the source and 192.168.1.0 as the destination).
In my experience whether traceroute uses UDP or ICMP depends on the OS of the end station. IOS devices and _nix boxes use UDP as you mention. But Windows uses ICMP. So what to put into the access list depends on what is on the source subnet.
I worry a bit about denying all unreachable messages and what you would no longer be informed about. But I do believe that if denying traceroute is important that denying the unreachable response is more effective than trying to deny the outbound probe packets.
This document gives several answers on frequently asked questions for PFRv3 channel state behavior.
Q1: What are all the channel operational states from a BR (border role) perspective and what are the rules/conditions to be in each st...
The need was to reach an host inside a LAN through a VPN connection managed by the LAN gateway (Cisco 1921).
The LAN gateway performs NAT and there was a dedicate nat rule for the host i wanted to reach through VPN.
I couldn't connect to the hos...