<?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: ACL Nestingvs Service Policy in Routing and SD-WAN</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/acl-nestingvs-service-policy/m-p/3740494#M304374</link>
    <description>Consider the router config where we have defined extended_ACL1 and extended_ACL2 and use them on some interfaces. For another interface, I want to apply both of them(allowed by any one of the ACL) so  I have to now create another extended ACL by copying lines from  extended_ACL1 and extended_ACL2 and putting them together. This increases the config text so I was asking if there are any alternatives(like the one I suggested)?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ip access-list extended_ACL1&lt;BR /&gt;   permit  ip ....&lt;BR /&gt;   permit  ip ....&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ip access-list extended_ACL2&lt;BR /&gt;   permit udp ....&lt;BR /&gt;   permit udp ....&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ip access-list extended_merged&lt;BR /&gt;   permit ip ....&lt;BR /&gt;   permit ip ....&lt;BR /&gt;   permit udp ...&lt;BR /&gt;   permit udp ...</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2018 21:05:48 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>SivaKesava</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-11-06T21:05:48Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ACL Nestingvs Service Policy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/acl-nestingvs-service-policy/m-p/3739638#M304359</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi all,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Consider two extended ACLs (extended_ACL1, extended_ACL2). If I want to apply both of them (allowed by any one of them)&amp;nbsp;on the input for an interface I have to create a new ACL(merged_Extended) and then apply using&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;"ip&amp;nbsp;access-group merged_Extended in"&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is there any other better way?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Consider the same scenario where both the ACLs are to be applied. If I create&amp;nbsp;a &amp;nbsp;class-maps as follows:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;class-map match-any map1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;match access-group name extended_ACL1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;match access-group name extended_ACL2&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Then create a policy-map as:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;policy-map merged&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;class map1&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;pass&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;class class-default&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;drop&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Now If I apply these to the interface as :&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;interface TenGigabitEthernet1/4&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&amp;nbsp; service-policy input merged&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is this a right approach? Can it be done like this?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2018 20:52:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/acl-nestingvs-service-policy/m-p/3739638#M304359</guid>
      <dc:creator>SivaKesava</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-06T20:52:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ACL Nestingvs Service Policy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/acl-nestingvs-service-policy/m-p/3739904#M304365</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;My understanding&amp;nbsp;this&amp;nbsp;wont work, The interface will it probably take the policy but the router wont process it.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Whats wrong using just the one extended acl to do the job?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2018 09:46:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/acl-nestingvs-service-policy/m-p/3739904#M304365</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul driver</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-06T09:46:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ACL Nestingvs Service Policy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/acl-nestingvs-service-policy/m-p/3740494#M304374</link>
      <description>Consider the router config where we have defined extended_ACL1 and extended_ACL2 and use them on some interfaces. For another interface, I want to apply both of them(allowed by any one of the ACL) so  I have to now create another extended ACL by copying lines from  extended_ACL1 and extended_ACL2 and putting them together. This increases the config text so I was asking if there are any alternatives(like the one I suggested)?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ip access-list extended_ACL1&lt;BR /&gt;   permit  ip ....&lt;BR /&gt;   permit  ip ....&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ip access-list extended_ACL2&lt;BR /&gt;   permit udp ....&lt;BR /&gt;   permit udp ....&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ip access-list extended_merged&lt;BR /&gt;   permit ip ....&lt;BR /&gt;   permit ip ....&lt;BR /&gt;   permit udp ...&lt;BR /&gt;   permit udp ...</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2018 21:05:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/acl-nestingvs-service-policy/m-p/3740494#M304374</guid>
      <dc:creator>SivaKesava</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-06T21:05:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ACL Nestingvs Service Policy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/acl-nestingvs-service-policy/m-p/3740895#M304384</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/822094"&gt;@SivaKesava&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wrote:&lt;BR /&gt; so I was asking if there are any alternatives(like the one I suggested)?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
&lt;P&gt;As far as I am aware I dont think there is, but that's not to say there isnt one.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2018 08:54:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/acl-nestingvs-service-policy/m-p/3740895#M304384</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul driver</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-07T08:54:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

