a few PIX 6.3 oddities

Jun 29, 2005 2 Replies

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...


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.

:> 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.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required