I was indeed able to use the appropriate mask for some of the ranges I
needed to add, but some of them just didn't fit a mask properly. My
example was one that I had used a mask on and wasn't truly
representative of one of the "problem child" ranges. 

Thanks again. 

**********************
Charlie Kaiser
W2K3 MCSA/MCSE/Security
Systems Engineer
Essex Credit / Brickwalk
510 595 5083
**********************  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Darren Mar-Elia
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:49 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] GP question - port exceptions using 
> IP address ranges
> 
> Andrew-
> 
> Your response is perfectly good if the bit math works for 
> that mask. What I was referring to is the fact that you can't 
> enter something like:
> 
>  
> 
> 10.1.1.0 - 10.1.10.0 into the firewall exceptions dialog
> 
>  
> 
> In other words, you can only enter a single contiguous 
> address space per entry. But if you're right, and a 20 bit 
> mask works for Charlie's addressing, then he's good to go.
> 
>  
> 
> Darren
> 
>  
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Cace
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:21 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] GP question - port exceptions using 
> IP address ranges
> 
>  
> 
> Oops, Charlie.  Then ignore my previous email.  Darren knows 
> his GPO stuff.
> 
>  
> 
> -Andrew
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Darren Mar-Elia
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:30 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] GP question - port exceptions using 
> IP address ranges
> 
> Charlie-
> 
> I've seen this question asked many times, and the bottom line 
> is no, there is no way to enter ranges into the exceptions 
> lists. It would be nice though :)
> 
>  
> 
> Darren
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Darren Mar-Elia
> 
> For comprehensive Windows Group Policy Information, check out 
> www.gpoguy.com <http://www.gpoguy.com/> -- the best source 
> for GPO FAQs, video training, tools and whitepapers. Also 
> check out the Windows Group Policy Guide 
> <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0735622175/qid=1122367169/sr
> =8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1133146-9411929?v=glance&n=283155> , 
> the definitive resource for Group Policy information. 
> 
>  
> 
> Group Policy Management solutions at SDM Software 
> <http://www.sdmsoftware.com/> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Charlie Kaiser
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 7:56 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [ActiveDir] GP question - port exceptions using IP 
> address ranges
> 
>  
> 
> I've been tasked with modifying one of our GPs to allow a 
> greater range
> 
> of access to our desktop PCs using Dameware since our support 
> model has
> 
> changed. Currently we allow Dameware access from one IP subnet. We now
> 
> need to add more subnets. The problem is that a number of 
> these subnets
> 
> are not nicely divided. For example, 204.24.0.1 - 
> 204.24.15.255, to pick
> 
> a random range.
> 
>  
> 
> I know the syntax for the policy setting is something like this:
> 
> "6129:TCP:204.24.0.1/24:enabled:dameware" or
> 
> "6129:TCP:204.24.0.1/255.255.255.0:enabled:dameware". Is 
> there a way to
> 
> enter the range above without having to enter each of the included
> 
> subnets?
> 
> Thanks...
> 
>  
> 
> **********************
> 
> Charlie Kaiser
> 
> W2K3 MCSA/MCSE/Security
> 
> Systems Engineer
> 
> Essex Credit / Brickwalk
> 
> 510 595 5083
> 
> ********************** 
> 
> List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> 
> List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> 
> List archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> 
> 
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/

Reply via email to