- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-08-2014 08:48 PM - edited 03-07-2019 07:59 PM
Hello,
There has been an access list in place where I work since well before I arrived and it doesn't quite work. I've done some research on ACLs and modified it so that it works better than it did before; however, it still doesn't do what was designed to do - block or "quarantine" devices so they are forced to update their systems with patches. It is also used to help in the baselining of pcs.
The access list works for the blocking portion, but it doesn't quite work for the baselining portion, meaning it currently succeeds in forcing the pcs to go to our server and get the latest patches but as a part of the baselining process, all machines have a policy that is pushed to them that maps a share drive. This is where the problem is - with the existing ACL, they can ping and see the share drive but they cannot access it. I've tried changing the permit ip statement to permit tcp but that just hoses the pc up and they get a "general failure" when trying to ping the share drive.
Here is access list:
ip access-list extended Quarantine_IN_L1
permit icmp any any
permit udp any any eq bootps
permit udp any any eq bootpc
permit upd any any eq domain
permit tcp any eq 3389 any
permit ip any host x.x.x.x (baseline server)
permit ip any host x.x.x.x (share drive)
permit ip any host x.x.x.x (domain controller)
permit ip any host x.x.x.x (domain controller)
ip access-list extended Quarantine_Out_L1
permit icmp any any
permit udp any any eq bootps
permit udp any any eq bootpc
permit udp any an any eq domain
permit tcp any any eq 3389
permit ip host (baseline server) any
permit ip host (share drive) any
permit ip host (domain controller) any
permit ip host (domain controller) any
As I said, I tried changing the permit ip host (baseline server) any and ip any host (baseline server) to permit tcp statements. That didn't work; then I modified it so there were both permit tcp and permit ip (baseline server) statements. That also didn't work.
Any help would be greatly appreciated as I've been working on this issue for almost a week now with nothing to show but bald spots where I've pulled my hair out!
Thanks,
Kiley
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Labels:
-
Other Switching
Accepted Solutions
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-09-2014 02:45 AM
Hello
Thanks for the additional information - so when a RACL is being applied to an SVI the ACL logic is a bit different
IN = Originating from host on that vlan
OUT = Destined for host within the vlan
Try amending your acls to accommodate the above logic
res
Paul
Please rate and mark as an accepted solution if you have found any of the information provided useful.
This then could assist others on these forums to find a valuable answer and broadens the community’s global network.
Kind Regards
Paul
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-08-2014 08:56 PM
Duplicate post.
Go here: https://supportforums.cisco.com/discussion/12251476/access-list-issues
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-08-2014 09:21 PM
Leo,
That was my error; I posted it in the wrong location so I thought I caught it before moving it to the LAN discussion group from the WAN discussion group.
Issue should now be in the correct location.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-09-2014 01:32 AM
Hello
You dont say on what and where these acls are applied to?
Can you provide a simple topology of your network?
Also - "with the existing ACL, they can ping and see the share drive but they cannot access it"
You sure the acls above are prohibiting access and not user/directory permissions on the network share of the domain server?
res
Paul
Please rate and mark as an accepted solution if you have found any of the information provided useful.
This then could assist others on these forums to find a valuable answer and broadens the community’s global network.
Kind Regards
Paul
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-09-2014 02:04 AM
Paul,
When I remove the ACL, they can access the share drive so I figured it was something I've done wrong with the ACL. I'm not able to provide a topology diagram of the network unfortunately, but we do have a server subnet, user subnet - typical of a medium sized company, I would assume. The ACL is applied to the L3 interface for baselining:
int vlan 500
description BASELINE VLAN
ip addres x.x.x.x x.x.x.x
ip access-group Quarantine_IN_L1 in
ip access-group Quarantine_Out_L1 out
ip helper-address x.x.x.x
no ip redirects
no ip unreachables
no ip proxy-arp
Thanks,
Kiley
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
07-09-2014 02:45 AM
Hello
Thanks for the additional information - so when a RACL is being applied to an SVI the ACL logic is a bit different
IN = Originating from host on that vlan
OUT = Destined for host within the vlan
Try amending your acls to accommodate the above logic
res
Paul
Please rate and mark as an accepted solution if you have found any of the information provided useful.
This then could assist others on these forums to find a valuable answer and broadens the community’s global network.
Kind Regards
Paul
