<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Why doesn't this work? in Application Networking</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346034#M5758</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The NQL is only small for testing. It will be much bigger for production use.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyways, I did test with just the IP address directly in the ACL as you suggested, with the same result. No hit at all on the ACL clause.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:27:44 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jchin</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2004-10-12T07:27:44Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Why doesn't this work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346032#M5756</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have TAC case opened about this CSS problem. The TAC engineer said everything looks okay but doesn't know why it wouldn't work. I just found out he is going to be away until November. Before I requeue the case, I thought I would try to see anyone here can spot anything wrong with my configuration. The objective is to direct traffic sourced from specific IP addresses or subnets to a service hosting the "you are not welcomed here" site. I am running this on a CSS 11503 with software 07.30.1.06.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Relevant excerpts of the CSS config (sanitized for public viewing) are here ...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;service BLOCKED-1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  ip address 192.168.24.113&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  keepalive type none&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  active&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;service WWW-1 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  ip address 192.168.24.112 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  keepalive type none &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  active&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;service WWW-2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  ip address 192.168.24.122 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  keepalive type none &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  active &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;nql YOU-R-BLOCKED_NQL&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; description "Block these IP addresses from normal access."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 "Bad Joe"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;acl 1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; clause 5 permit tcp nql YOU-R-BLOCKED_NQL destination 1.1.1.1 eq 80 prefer BLOCKED-1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  clause 10 permit tcp any destination 1.1.1.1 eq 80&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  clause 20 permit tcp any destination 1.1.1.1 eq 443&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; apply circuit-(VLAN500)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;circuit VLAN500&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  ip address 1.1.1.254 255.255.254.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;owner SITE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  content WWW &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;    vip address 1.1.1.1 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;    add service WWW-1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;    add service WWW-2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Clauses 10 and 20 receive hits and all traffic, including those sourced from 2.2.2.2 are routed to WWW-1 and WWW-2. Clause 5 gets no hit whatsoever!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:28:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346032#M5756</guid>
      <dc:creator>jchin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-10-10T22:28:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Why doesn't this work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346033#M5757</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;since your nql is quite small, did you try to get rid of it and configure the ip address directly in your acl ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is the apply statement correctly appearing after all the acl clauses ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gilles.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:14:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346033#M5757</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gilles Dufour</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-10-11T12:14:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Why doesn't this work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346034#M5758</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The NQL is only small for testing. It will be much bigger for production use.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyways, I did test with just the IP address directly in the ACL as you suggested, with the same result. No hit at all on the ACL clause.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:27:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346034#M5758</guid>
      <dc:creator>jchin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-10-12T07:27:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Why doesn't this work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346035#M5759</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just tested with "deny" instead of "permit" and it blocked the traffic sourced from IP addresses listed in the nql. But the "prefer" option doesn't work.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:47:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346035#M5759</guid>
      <dc:creator>jchin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-10-12T07:47:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Why doesn't this work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346036#M5760</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;change your destination.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do not specify the ip address but content rule name.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Type content &lt;OWNER&gt; instead of an ip address.&lt;/OWNER&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gilles.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:14:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346036#M5760</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gilles Dufour</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-10-12T10:14:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Why doesn't this work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346037#M5761</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks! That did the trick! So the relevant acl entry now looks like ...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; clause 5 permit tcp nql YOU-R-BLOCKED_NQL destination content SITE/WWW prefer BLOCKED-1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:16:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346037#M5761</guid>
      <dc:creator>jchin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-10-13T07:16:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Why doesn't this work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346038#M5762</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any reason why "destination content" works and "destination &lt;IP address="" of="" vip=""&gt;" didn't?&lt;/IP&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, is there a way to redirect rewrite the URL instead of redirecting to the "preferred" service?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:43:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346038#M5762</guid>
      <dc:creator>nchinetti</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-10-13T16:43:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Why doesn't this work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346039#M5763</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;it's because the acl is checked 2 times.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;First time in hardware for basic security.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Allow/permit based on source destination.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That's why if you do block, it will block the traffic correctly.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Using a prefered service is done is software, when the content has been matched.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you don't specify content, but ip address, the CSS could be confused [many rules with same ip but different port or url].&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyway, this is expected to work like this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You could configure the prefered service to be a redirect service.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This would send an http redirect to the client.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Check redirect service config on our website.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gilles.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:46:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346039#M5763</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gilles Dufour</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-10-14T10:46:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Why doesn't this work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346040#M5764</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Will it reduce the throughput of the switch significantly to have the software switched ACL clause present?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:56:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346040#M5764</guid>
      <dc:creator>jchin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-10-16T05:56:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Why doesn't this work?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346041#M5765</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I don't know if we can say significantly.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You would have to receive a lot of unnecessary traffic to see a difference.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But we can say it is a good practice to have acl to filter traffic and only allow what you really need.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gilles.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:19:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/why-doesn-t-this-work/m-p/346041#M5765</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gilles Dufour</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2004-10-16T07:19:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

