Correct Tyson. That confirms our thoughts

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruno <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Security] ZBF with self-zones configured: IGPs -
PASS or INSPECT?
To: Kingsley Charles <[email protected]>


No
Rack1R3#sh access-l 102
Extended IP access list 102
    10 permit ospf any any

After 1h and 10min having a route installed
O       2.2.2.2 [110/2] via 136.1.23.2, 01:10:11, FastEthernet0/1

I still ain't getting any hits at all

Rack1R3#sh policy-map type inspect zone outside-self
 Zone-pair: outside-self

  Service-policy inspect : outside-self

    Class-map: outside-self (match-any)
      Match: protocol tcp
        0 packets, 0 bytes
        30 second rate 0 bps
      Match: protocol udp
        0 packets, 0 bytes
        30 second rate 0 bps
      Match: protocol icmp
        5 packets, 400 bytes
        30 second rate 0 bps
      Inspect
        Packet inspection statistics [process switch:fast switch]
        icmp packets: [5:0]


        Session creations since subsystem startup or last reset 5
        Current session counts (estab/half-open/terminating) [0:0:0]
        Maxever session counts (estab/half-open/terminating) [0:1:0]
        Last session created 00:57:51

        Last statistic reset never
        Last session creation rate 0
        Maxever session creation rate 5
        Last half-open session total 0

    *Class-map: ospf (match-all)
      Match: access-group 102
      Pass
        0 packets, 0 bytes*

    Class-map: class-default (match-any)
      Match: any
      Drop
        15 packets, 1200 bytes

I think the answers for that would be that either CBAC or ZBF are there for
TCP/UDP/ICMP only and as soon as they have no capabilities on OSPF and such,
they do not inspect that in any ways. I am believing in this to answer such
output


On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Kingsley Charles <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Is the hit counter for the ospf acl incrementing?
>
>
> With regards
> Kings
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Bruno <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Well, not sure what it means but I lab here and no OSPF packets got
>> dropped so far
>>
>> policy-map type inspect outside-self
>>  class type inspect outside-self
>>   inspect
>>  class type inspect ospf
>>   pass
>>
>> class-map type inspect match-all ospf
>>  match access-group 102
>> class-map type inspect match-all outside-self
>>  match protocol tcp
>>  match protocol udp
>>  match protocol icmp
>>
>> access-l 102 permit ospf any any
>>
>> Neither any packets hit the ACLs
>>
>> Rack1R3(config)#do sh policy-map ty ins zone outside-self
>>  Zone-pair: outside-self
>>
>>   Service-policy inspect : outside-self
>>
>>     Class-map: outside-self (match-all)
>>       Match: protocol tcp
>>       Match: protocol udp
>>       Match: protocol icmp
>>       Inspect
>>         Session creations since subsystem startup or last reset 0
>>         Current session counts (estab/half-open/terminating) [0:0:0]
>>         Maxever session counts (estab/half-open/terminating) [0:0:0]
>>         Last session created never
>>         Last statistic reset never
>>         Last session creation rate 0
>>         Maxever session creation rate 0
>>         Last half-open session total 0
>>
>>     *Class-map: ospf (match-all)
>>       Match: access-group 102
>>       Pass
>>         0 packets, 0 bytes*
>>
>>     Class-map: class-default (match-any)
>>       Match: any
>>       Drop (default action)
>>         5 packets, 400 bytes
>>
>> Any idea why it did not hit on ACLs. That wou
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Bruno <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> More info about this
>>> Tried to create a PAM and that`s the message I get
>>> %Unable to add port-map entry.
>>>  TCP or UDP protocol must be specified for user-defined applications
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Bruno <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think your suggestion would work King.
>>>> I think when you go under policy-map to attach a class-map you must have
>>>> configured at least 1 INSPECT. A class-map with no inspect statement, when
>>>> attached under policy-map generates this:
>>>> %No specific protocol configured in class test for inspection. All
>>>> protocols will be inspected
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the answer for the question but would shoot that is not
>>>> possible as King said
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Kingsley Charles <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BGP and RIP which uses TCP and UDP can be inspected. But not sure, if
>>>>> OSPF and EIGRP which are directly encapsulated in IP can be inspected 
>>>>> using
>>>>> their protocol numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can configure access-list for ospf/eigrp and associate to the class
>>>>> map for testing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> With regards
>>>>> Kings
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Richard Chan 
>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the best practice for allowing IGP traffic
>>>>>>  when self zones are configured in both directions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Say you have self-Outside zone and Outside-self zone configured.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. For IGPs like OSPF/RIP/EIGRP would you add a PASS action class
>>>>>> to both zone-pairs? Or do you "inspect" one of them. I don't think of
>>>>>> IGP peerings as "sessions" in the UDP/TCP sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> !---
>>>>>> policy-map type inspect XXX-out-self
>>>>>>  class IGP
>>>>>>   pass
>>>>>> !--- apply to Outside-self zone-pair
>>>>>> !---
>>>>>> policy-map type inspect XXX-self-out
>>>>>>  class IGP
>>>>>>   pass
>>>>>> !--- apply to self-Outside zone-pair
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>>>>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>>>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bruno Fagioli (by Jaunty Jackalope)
>>>> Cisco Security Professional
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bruno Fagioli (by Jaunty Jackalope)
>>> Cisco Security Professional
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bruno Fagioli (by Jaunty Jackalope)
>> Cisco Security Professional
>>
>
>


-- 
Bruno Fagioli (by Jaunty Jackalope)
Cisco Security Professional



-- 
Bruno Fagioli (by Jaunty Jackalope)
Cisco Security Professional
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Reply via email to