a few PIX 6.3 oddities

Experimenting a few minutes ago, I found a couple of PIX 6.3(3) and 6.3(4) 'name' enhancements that aren't documented. These might have come into effect earlier still; I haven't checked.

Before, a value defined in a 'name' could only be used in the host or network position of a location where an ip and mask pair was expected, such as in

access-list FOO permit udp host MyServer MyISP 255.255.255.200 eq dns

object-group network BAR network-object host MyOtherServer

In particular, using a name in the netmask area was not allowed:

name 255.255.255.0 ClassC access-list FOO permit udp host MyServer MyISP ClassC eq dns

In 6.3(3) and 6.3(4) it is now valid to enter a name instead of a netmask. This is not what the online help indicates, but it works.

When you display the access-list, the name will NOT be displayed in the mask areas.

If, though, you use this in an object-group network, and you display the object, then the name WILL be substituted:

npix(config-network)# show object-group id FOO object-group network FOO network-object 208.215.64.0 Bad64

But if this object is embedded into an ACL, then when you display the ACL and the PIX expands out the object-group, then in the display of the ACL, the mask names will NOT be shown -- only when you display the objects as objects.

Interestingly, names of masks -will- be substituted when showing 'route' statements.

======

I also found that PIX 6.x accepts netmasks that are not CIDR. Before I was under the impression that the masks had to have consequative bits set. Somehow I suspect that some features (e.g., IPSec) don't take kindly to non-consequative bits set in the mask...

Reply to
Walter Roberson
Loading thread data ...

What about non-consecutive netmask bits? Does it really mean I can represent all networks whose kind is indicated by the last clear bits?

I mean

10.10.10.0 255.255.255.0 stands for 10.10.10.0-255

but

does 10.10.10.0 255.254.255.0 stand for 10.10.10.0-255 and 10.11.10.0-255 ?

Alex.

Reply to
AM

:> I also found that PIX 6.x accepts netmasks that are not CIDR. Before :> I was under the impression that the masks had to have consequative :> bits set.

:does 10.10.10.0 255.254.255.0 stand for 10.10.10.0-255 and 10.11.10.0-255 ?

Maybe. The PIX does not complain if you use 255.254.255.0 as the mask, and -does- hold on to the mask as given, and -does- check to see whether the network given pairs with the mask given. But I would want to test this first: I -suspect- it does not work in some contexts such as ip address pools and IPSec masks.

Reply to
Walter Roberson

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.