prioritize traffic on PIX?

In article , Brian Bergin wrote: :Using a PIX 501 or 506E and 6.3(4) is it possible to give higher priority to :traffic on specific UDP ports, say VOIP ports?

No. Wait till 7.0(x) [if that ever reaches the 501 or 506/506E...]

:NOTICE: Use of this information is contingent upon acceptance of Paragraph 17 of Terabyte's Terms and conditions located at

The only "information" that I saw was your email address. There are many different ways to "use" that information, only a small number of which involve actually sending email.

You and Terabyte have no authority to impose "implied contracts" on readers of public messages.

NOTICE: Use of this information is contingent upon acceptance of Paragraph 17 of the terms and conditions of the Canada Eat The Cookie Foundation (which require you to bring home-baked cookies to your next staff meeting.)

|In article , |Brian Bergin wrote: |:Using a PIX 501 or 506E and 6.3(4) is it possible to give higher priority to |:traffic on specific UDP ports, say VOIP ports? | |No. Wait till 7.0(x) [if that ever reaches the 501 or 506/506E...]

:-(

Time to find a new firewall vendor.

| |:NOTICE: Use of this information is contingent upon acceptance of Paragraph 17 of Terabyte's Terms and conditions located at

| |The only "information" that I saw was your email address. There are |many different ways to "use" that information, only a small number of |which involve actually sending email. | |You and Terabyte have no authority to impose "implied contracts" on |readers of public messages.

Our attorney's would disagree, at least in the US. Every KB posted on most company's sites are provided As-Is and you may choose to use or not to use it at your own risk. That's simply what our disclaimer states.

Thanks... Brian Bergin

I can be reached via e-mail at cisco_dot_news_at_comcept_dot_net.

Please post replies to the group so all may benefit.

NOTICE: Use of this information is contingent upon acceptance of Paragraph 17 of Terabyte's Terms and conditions located at

In article , Brian Bergin wrote: :|You and Terabyte have no authority to impose "implied contracts" on :|readers of public messages.

:Our attorney's would disagree, at least in the US.

Your attorney's would be wrong. No implied contract can be enforced in the USA without the parties indicating by their actions that they agree to the contract, or else that one of the parties would be "unjustly enriched" by refusing to recognize the contract (i.e., refusal to pay for emergency medical services to an unconcious patient.)

Furthermore, in order for a contract to exist in the USA, there must be an exchange of "consideration" -- both parties must gain something by the contract.

Ignoring a implied contract is NOT consent to the contract -- and I will state outright that I do NOT agree to the implied contract you attempt to impose on your postings. I also deny that any contract is formed, as I am offered no "consideration" in exchange for my aquiesence to the implied contract. Remember, you are not providing value to me: I am providing value (time, experience, answers) to you.

I cannot force you to get rid of the attempted implied contract, but immediately after this message I will be adding you to my comp.dcom.sys.cisco KILLFILE, so that I do not run the risk of being bound by your implied contract. If you choose to drop the implied contract, then you know how to reach me by email.

|In article , |Brian Bergin wrote: |:|You and Terabyte have no authority to impose "implied contracts" on |:|readers of public messages. | |:Our attorney's would disagree, at least in the US. | |Your attorney's would be wrong. No implied contract can be enforced |in the USA without the parties indicating by their actions |that they agree to the contract, or else that one of the parties |would be "unjustly enriched" by refusing to recognize the contract |(i.e., refusal to pay for emergency medical services to an unconcious |patient.)

Nice to meet you, Walter Roberson, Esq.

| |Furthermore, in order for a contract to exist in the USA, there must |be an exchange of "consideration" -- both parties must gain something |by the contract. | |Ignoring a implied contract is NOT consent to the contract -- and |I will state outright that I do NOT agree to the implied contract you |attempt to impose on your postings. I also deny that any contract |is formed, as I am offered no "consideration" in exchange for |my aquiesence to the implied contract. Remember, you are not |providing value to me: I am providing value (time, experience, answers) |to you. | | |I cannot force you to get rid of the attempted implied contract, but |immediately after this message I will be adding you to my |comp.dcom.sys.cisco KILLFILE, so that I do not run the risk of |being bound by your implied contract. If you choose to drop the |implied contract, then you know how to reach me by email.

If I ask a question and don't post any recommendations you may be right, there's no exchange of consideration; however, if I post a recommendation to someone in a group, and I post in many, that may or may not work in any given situation then this helps indemnify us if the solution doesn't work for the specific individual. Say someone wants to know how to do something on a 2003 Server and I tell them how we did it, if they try it my way and blow up their system they're on their own as I've stated that in order to use my method as posted by me they must agree to it. Microsoft, Cisco, and others often post this type of disclaimer in their KB articles. The sig is generic, posted to all posts a Terabyte employee makes, obviously if I'm asking a question there's unlikely to be any implied exchange for the benefit of the other party so my disclaimer would not apply.

In fact, you post enough here are you not concerned about the potential liability of posting something that's wrong or otherwise doesn't work for one or more persons reading your posts? Have you never posted anything that could work for one person and not necessarily another? In this court-happy world, disclaimers are always a good thing. Enforceable? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm betting they go a long way when a judge asks 'so did you see his disclaimer that said it might or might not work for you and that you should take all steps to ensure your system's safety and backup status before you started?'

Anyway, your knowledge is always appreciated and helpful. When you and both pass our respective Bar exams we can revisit this...

Thanks... Brian Bergin

I can be reached via e-mail at cisco_dot_news_at_comcept_dot_net.

Please post replies to the group so all may benefit.

NOTICE: Use of this information is contingent upon acceptance of Paragraph 17 of Terabyte's Terms and conditions located at