Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Cisco filter question
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:55:47 -0500


Scott McGrath wrote:


Geo,

Look at your set interface Null0 command the rest is correct
you want to set the next hop to be Null0. How to do this is left as an exercise for the reader.


Interface Null0 works fine. Here's a quick check.

Inbound (from peers) policy matches
route-map nachi-worm, permit, sequence 10
  Match clauses:
    ip address (access-lists): 199
    length 92 92
  Set clauses:
    interface Null0
  Policy routing matches: 10921 packets, 1048416 bytes

Outbound (to internal network) accesslist matches
Extended IP access list 181
    deny tcp any any eq 135 (1994 matches)
    permit icmp any any echo (757 matches)
    permit icmp any any echo-reply (381 matches)
    permit ip any any (381370 matches)

I cleared 181 first, then cleared route-map counters. I then checked route-map counters first before checking access-list counters. This means the access-list has more time to accrue maches yet it is considerably smaller. The checks were a matter of seconds. I'd say the policy is working. The echo/echo-reply could easily be everyday pings which are up abit due to various networks having performance issues.

IOS Versioning can sometimes have issues. There's also the question of if the packet came in the inbound interface that had the policy applied.

-Jack


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]