Cisco Switching/Routing :: 4503 -MAC Access-list Extended To Only Allow Gateway Traffic
Nov 7, 2011
We have a gateway on a 4503, say on port 2/1, and we only want the other devices that are plugged into the 4503 to be able to talk to the gateway and thats it. The other devices are Motorola TUT DSL devices and they plug into the 4503 directly.
Normally "switchport protected" would make this very easy to keep stuff on one port from talking to other ports but with 4500's you are not able to do that command. So we implemented a MAC Access-List Extended ACL. Here is what we did
mac access-list extended BLAH
permit #host 0000.XXXX.YYYY any
interface range fa 2/5 - 20
mac access-group BLAH out
The MAC address 0000.XXXX.YYYY is the MAC address of the gateway that is plugged into Fa2/1 and the DSL TUT devices are plugged into ports Fa2/5-20. We would think that this config would only allow devices on the TUT DSL to talk only to the Gateway but we don't really think this is happening. The TUT devices are learning about MAC addresses that are on other TUT devices.
I'm trying to configure an extended access list on one AS5350XM but I get one way hearing on a voice calls and I can't determine why (please see the attached diagram). There is an OSPF running on both gigabit interfaces and the Loopback address is also advertised (it is actually the voip IP address). The access list is applied on both interfaces in the inbound direction. There is another gateway with IP:184.108.40.206 (no firewalls here) and the routing between gateways is working properly.
Here is part of the access list (applied on AS5350):
. . permit ip host 220.127.116.11 host 18.104.22.168 . .
When I review the log of the AS5350xm I see many errors like this one:
%SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list example denied udp 22.214.171.124(16638) -> 126.96.36.199(18094), 1 packet
So how it is possible to see this error since the access list is in inbound direction and the IP address (188.8.131.52) is open. I don't have problems when I do telnet or ssh from 184.108.40.206 to 220.127.116.11.
We had a core switch (4503), distribution switches and access in our network and consists of many vlans. Almost all vlans uses DHCP Pools. But for few vlans DHCP is not yet configured. Recently one of the rogue user in vlan 1 gave the corresponding interface vlan ip of core switch (gateway) as his ip and caused a prolonged network outage for the vlan. Any way we are going to seggregate vlan 1 into different vlans, but before that we need a temporary plan to block such kinds of attack.What are the possible ways we can avoid the network outage problem even if a user gave the gateway ip to the machine?
I'm trying to add an access-list rule to allow internal servers to connect an outside host on a asa 5540. The hostname translates to multiple ip's. Normally I just lookup the ip address or one of the ip's the hostname translates too and use that in the access-list as the host. For some reason the actual ip's, which are a few, are not always available so using a specific ip sometimes does not work, thus the reason I have to use the hostname instead of the ip. I have 2 hostnames. www.hostname.com and subdomain.hostname.com.
This is how I normally add these rules (the ip addresses are fictive): access-list internet_access extended permit tcp host 192.168.50.5 host 18.104.22.168 eq www log
When I try to add this using the hostname on our asa I get an error: access-list internet_access extended permit tcp host 192.168.50.5 host www.hostname.com ?ERROR: % Unrecognized command
I've tried it without the 'www', so hostname.com but same error.
I have a sip gateway (AS5400) that is used to connect sip providers to our internal voice network.Internal gateway (10.1.1.2 LAN) -- SIP trunk -- AS5400 (10.1.1.3 LAN/ 22.214.171.124 WAN) -- SIP trunk -- Internet SIP Provider We encountered the following problem :A SIP call from internal gateway to the sip provider could establish but was muted on our side (sip provider could hear us)On the WAN interface of the AS5400, there is a ACL that filter traffic IN coming from SIP Provider
interface GigabitEthernet0/0 ip address 126.96.36.199 255.255.255.224 ip access-group 101 in
I log the deny on this ACL and I saw some udp packets denied with LAN addresses !*Mar 3 15:24:44.001: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 101 denied udp 10.1.1.3(0) -> 10.1.1.2 (0), 1 packet I did not bind anything on the sip config.When I changed the ACLs, calls went well.Why do I see LAN packets on the WAN interface ?
I'm looking to implement a vlan filter to keep unnecessary stuff off my access-layer. Things like IPv6, IPX etc. I really only want IPv4, ARP and 802.1q on these 4500s. I know on 3750, 3560s etc, when I create the mac access-list, I can do it by ethertype, but on the 4500, I dont have that option.
I have an 1800 isr that is running with port forwarding only. It is running a series of ip nat inside source static address port address port commands. It does not have an access list bound to the outside interface. This is working fine, but i am wondering if this is a security concern?
Extended IP access list VLAN20 10 permit tcp any any established 11 permit icmp any any 20 permit tcp any 192.168.20.0 0.0.0.255 eq 80 30 permit tcp any 192.168.20.0 0.0.0.255 eq 443 40 deny ip any any log
Above is the network diagram and access list for VLAN 20 and VLAN 30, applied on incoming direction of each valn.But still able to access other port which is not on access list, tried changing the direction with no luck.Inter vlan routing is enabled on CoreSwitch default router is 192.168.10.10
i have one Cisco 3750, am using it as Core Switch where i have 6 more access switches are connected deirectly, and we are using VLANs in our network with the IP reange of 172.16.0.0 , now we had a new Internet connection which is dedicated to Exchange Server only.So we have TWO internet connection One for internet access to all users and another one for only Exchange Server.internet connection for the users is termiated at a Cisco 1700 Series Router and Internet for Exchage Server is terminated at a Cisco ASA Firewall.Now the problem is how can i write an access list, which says that all packets from Exchange server should be routed to ASA Firewall , and all other packets shoulde route to Cisco Router.IP address os Exchange server is 172.16.2.1, 172.16.2.2.
I have one computer connected to the 4506 that management does not want this PC to have access to anything on our network except our DHCP server and the one printer that resides on our network. I created an extended access list as follows. Our network is the 10.10.x.x and the external addresses the PC needs to access is 11.1.x.x. Once this PC is rebooted, it is unable to access DHCP to get the needed IP address it bounces back to a 169.x.x.x address and stops working.
Extended IP access list 2000 permit tcp host 10.10.200.242 host 188.8.131.52 (gateway) permit tcp host 10.10.200.242 host 184.108.40.206 eq smtp (access from the pc to external server for smtp) permit tcp host 10.10.200.242 host 220.127.116.11 eq 5721 (access from the pc to external server for remote access) [ code]...
Then I applied the access-group 2000 on the interface the PC is connected to. What am I missing for DHCP to work and for this PC to always get the ip address that is reserved?
I'm new to this forum and Cisco in general but I feel it may be very resourceful to me as I am a new network administrator fresh out of school for a local credit unionHere's my situation:We need to limit access to one of our servers to only 3 workstations used by our IT department. The server is on a Cisco 3560G on port 17, which is the interface I'm trying to apply a standard, basic ACL to, which looks like this:
I'm configuring Control Plane Police in a Catalyst 6509. This equipment is using IS-IS like its IGP routing protocol, and iBGP. In order to make CoPP work Im classifying the traffic entering the control plane like CRITICAL, IMPORTANT, NORMAL, UNDESIRABLE and DEFAULT. Obviously routing protocol traffic must be classified like CRITICAL. Doing so is easy to BGP because it runs over TCP/IP and I can configure the following access list to classify BGP:
ip access-list extended CP-CRITICAL-IN remark #### CONTROL PLANE CRITICAL TRAFFIC INBOUND #### remark #### ROUTING TRAFFIC - BGP #### permit tcp host [BGP neighbor addr] eq bgp host [local BGP addr] permit tcp host [BGP neighbor addr] host [local BGP addr] eq bgp deny ip any any
But IS-IS is also a CRITICAL traffic, but IS-IS doesn't run over TCP/IP, rather it exchange its own PDUs. So, how do I classify IS-IS traffic with an access list?
I configure multiple static RPs and one of the ACLs denies a source will it move on to the next entry that covers it in another acl? [code] i.e. 18.104.22.168 will be used as the RP for 224 to 238 and 22.214.171.124 will be used as the RP for 239.Will that work correctly, i.e. if a source is trying to register with the router and its for the group 126.96.36.199, will it be denied against the first RP and then permitted against the second RP?
I have a layer 3 switch, 3550.I have several vlans on there just for playing around with. One of the vlans, has a vonage linksys box attached to it with a UK number attached. From time to time telemarketers call at 03:00 in the morning, this as I'm sure you can imagine is not much fun. The linksys box gets 192.168.3.3 as it's ip.The switch is connected to a non cisco router at 192.168.0.1
interface FastEthernet0/24 no switchport ip address 192.168.0.2 255.255.255.0
I was thinking a time based access list would work best I have tried several variations but the phone still rings. I have tried access-list 1 deny host 192.168.3.3 permit ..... and more extensive lists but the phone still rings. I have not applied the time-range yet, so that's not the problem.I have applied the list to the vlan interface and to fa0/24 but it's not working.
I have a LIII Switch Cisco 3750x ,with diffrent Vlans , Some users are in Vlan 102 (10.10.2.0) and Some Users are in Vlan1 (10.10.1.0) , now i want to restrict the Vlan102 users to access Vlan1 , i am pasting my configuration below , how to create a access list .
interface Vlan1 ip address 10.10.1.36 255.255.255.0 ip helper-address 10.10.1.36
I need to enable/disable a mac access-list on a 2960 scheduled by time. The switch has lanbasek9-mz.122-44.SE6. As the mac access-list can not support time ranges, I tried EEM but seems like it is not supported in this device.
In my core Switch,there are 2 v LAN(V LAN 1 & V LAN 2)my switch is Cisco 4948,so be default ip routing is enable in it. My all servers (DHCP,HTTP,HTTPS) are in v LAN 1 & internet is also in v LAN 1.
My requirement is that v LAN 1 user should not communicate with the v LAN 2 and vice versa. But the v LAN 2 users need an access of all servers and internet which is in v LAN 1. How to configure the access-list. I have try on Packet tracer which i have attached.
note:v LAN 2 user should get the IP from dhcp server which is in vlan1.
we have two 2851's. One in Australia, one in NZ, IPsec VPN between the two.
We have multiple subnets behind the tunnels. From all the sunbets in Aus we can reach all the subnets in NZ, except for one. From NZ we can reach all the subnets in Aus. The traceroute and pings from the subnet in question in Aus goes out the internet interface of the router instead of going into the tunnel.
The subnets in question are 10.110.220/24 (Aus), 10.110.250/24 (NZ)
The access lists at both ends cover the traffic required but for some reason when leaving Australia the traffic is not captured by:
I have 3 3560 switches which are configured with trunks between them. They run vlan 10, 11 & 12. I have a 'core' switch (switch 1) of these 3 to which an MPLS router is connected on vlan12. I in addition have another switch hanging off the 'core' switch via a routed link (switch 4). I have EIGRP configured as a stub and as such the IP address on the routed link at the core switch end is of a /24 from v lan 1 on the other switch. This makes the route directly connected and therefore distributed via EIGRP stubs. Switch 1 is then exchanging routes with the MPLS router (via EIGRP).
The problem I have is that from any sub net on any switch (switch 1, 2 or 3) I can ping 192.168.13.1 (switch 4). When I try and ping switch 4 from over the MPLS I am unable to. If I trace to the switch I see it reaches the outside of the MPLS router, but is then unresponsive. The same applies if I try to ping switch 1 on 192.168.13.2. Any of the other IP addresses of switch 1 respond.
The MPLS network is a managed solution to which I have no access. I'm told that the MPLS provider is able to ping switch 1 & switch 4 on the 192.168.13.x addresses from a remote router (192.168.32.2). I have tried from a switch on the same L2 sub net (192.168.32.1) and I don't get a response.
From switch 4 I am able to ping the switch on 1 of it's interfaces (192.168.19.1), but not the interface I mentioned above 192.168.32.1. There are no access lists in place on the switches and no firewalls between the sites.
I was wondering why can't we no longer use the multiple ports within an extented ACL like I use to do it in a CAT3750E.I have IOS-XE Software, Catalyst 4500 L3 Switch Software (cat4500e-UNIVERSALK9-M), Version 03.02.00.SG.I wanted to create an ACL like so [code] But when I do, it tells me that I cannot do it.... I can only add 1 tcp port to my ACL line. I tried to search the "object-group" concept also but it's not implemented in this IOS.Can this be done in IOS-XE ?I'm migrating my enviroment from a CAT3750E stack to a C4510-E.
We faced with problem after upgrade ASR from 12(2) 33 XNE2. I know that this is an old XE release but our Radius deny authization from ASR with more new XE version. Here is our radius attribute configuretion:
! radius-server attribute 44 include-in-access-req radius-server attribute nas-port format d radius-server host x.x.x.x auth-port 1812 acct-port 1813 non-standard
How can I add in my configuration that ASR send necesserry NAS-Port-Type - VPDN
I couldn't found out any info ((( for radius-server attribute 61 extended
I have been trying to figure out a NAT issue on my 2811 and the inspect engine.I have 'ip inspect FW out' on my outside interface. If I turn it off, I also have to remove the access-list applying to inbound traffic on that same interface. Why is that? This whole thing centered around SIP registrations from devices on my LAN to my provider. The provieder is showing that I am registering from a high end port (1024 or something crazy). He said that it sounds like some type of SIP ALG or something on my router. For the life of me, I can't figure out what would be causing it. I am just using a standard route-map that points to the outside interface using 'overload'.
I am trying to write an extended ACL for the voice vlan.My scenario is the following:I have two PBXs with two Catalyst 4505 L3 switches.The C4505 are connected trough a trunk link.I have a VTP domain configured.
Voice VLANs are Vlan 100 and Vlan 101 with networks 10.2.0.0/16 and 10.4.0.0/16 Voip telephones are communicating between them self and everything is working fine.I want to secure both voice VLANs with an ACL to allow only couple of IPs to administer the phones.The PCs are connected trough a integrated switch via VOIP telephone.Here is the sample configuration of the dhcp pool for the PC VLAN:
ip dhcp pool PCs network 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 default-router 10.1.1.1 dns-server 10.10.10.1 option 43 hex 010a.5369.656d.656e.7300.0000.0204.0000.0064.0000.0000.00ff
I had to implement the 43 hex option because the PCs did not get the ip from the DHCP because of the vendor specific information.The thing that worries me is will the DHCP forward the ACKs for the PCs if I implement this test ACL:
ip access-list extended VLAN100 permit ip 10.2.0.0 0.0.255.255 10.4.0.0 0.0.255.255 permit ip 10.4.0.0 0.0.255.255 10.2.0.0 0.0.255.255 permit ip 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.255 10.2.0.0 0.0.255.255 permit ip 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.255 10.4.0.0 0.0.255.255 permit udp host 0.0.0.0 eq bootpc host 255.255.255.255 eq bootps (this I am not sure do I need) permit udp host 255.255.255.255 eq bootps host 0.0.0.0 eq bootpc (also this) deny ip any any
I only want to allow the network 192.168.2.0/24 and maybe some other hosts to access the web based http gui to adiminister the IP phones.All PCs are connected trough the VOIP terminals. I do not want to deny the traffic to PCs.
I have an ASA pair configured to replace a router that hosts a collection of IPSec Tunnels. Tunnels appear to work. I am lab'ing some additional controls that I would like to implement. On the Production Router that i plan to replace with the ASA's the current Tunnels are all wide open (all traffic allowed to pass). I was hoping to lock things down a little without having to reconfigure all of the Tunnels. My though was that an ACL on the Inside Interface blocking selected traffic Out (so into the LAN) should not impact the stability of the Tunnels but allow me to restrict some traffic from entering the LAN. One port that I was attempting to block is RDP 3389. When this ACL is applied to the inside interface it does not block Port 3389 at all. What am I missing? Is it that the trffic is being allowed because it is coming through one of my 'open' Tunnels?
Shouldn't IPSec Tunnel traffic be processed by the Inside Interface ACL just like all other traffic?