At 6:16 PM +0000 8/12/02, John Neiberger wrote: >Good point! Forgive me, I'd only had one cup of coffee when I wrote >that. Usually I need at least three before my explainer works >correctly. > >John
You bring up an interesting question. Could we have predicted our industry crash by monitoring coffee consumption by accountants, vendors, or venture capitalists, etc.? There _ought_ to be a correlation. > >>>> "Howard C. Berkowitz" 8/12/02 11:39:12 AM >>> >At 4:35 PM +0000 8/12/02, John Neiberger wrote: >>You're putting too much thought into this. :-) The ip keyword will >>match any ip packet regardless of the transport layer protocol being >>used. You use the tcp, udp, and icmp keywords when you want to be >even >>more specific. >> >>HTH, >>John >> >>>>> "maine dude" 8/12/02 10:16:19 AM >>> >>Please help... In the example :access-list 101 deny tcp host >>172.16.3.10 >>172.16.1.0 0.0.0.255 eq ftpaccess-list 101 permit ip any any Do the >>terms >>"tcp" and "ip" refer to the individual protocols or the stack ? I >>assume >>they refer to the individual protocols as you could substitute them >>with >>"udp" or "icmp" but then surely the last statement would allow only >>the >>individual "ip" protocol and therefore all other packets such as tcp >, >>udp, >>icmp would be filtered. Or does tcp , udp , icmp get through because >it >>is >>encapsulated in ip ? ( I hate the OSI model ) -DJ > >Trust me. IP designers did not have OSI compliance in mind. > >And to be picky, John, ICMP isn't a transport protocol. It is a >control/management protocol at the network layer. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=51255&t=51235 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
