Search results for query: *

Yep- we copied it to the start-up config; it didn't make any difference. No, we didn't reboot at any time- rebooting is not considered an option unless it's absolutely necessary. Are there any other signs that we can look for to see if it's bad memory?

We successfully made some changes to a couple of the acl's we have on our router, then did the sh run command, but couldn't see all of the changes we had made. Only the changes on one of the acl's appeared. However, when we performed a sh access-list 100, all of the changes we made were there...

Here's a question for you: we made the changes to both acl's by adding the appropriate statements to it (my boss wasn't comfortable yet with the idea of removing it from the interface to replace it with a new one). We did the sh run command, but couldn't see all of the changes we had made. Only...

It works in NT?

Oh- now I've done it to you Rudeboy! I'm sorry! That makes sense- and I thought the max was two, but when you said that only Cisco did that I was thinking maybe you could actually get away with more. (Although I'm not sure how that would work- if the packet doesn't match the criteria in your acl...

Man!- I did it again! I posted my response before I got a chance to see your answer- I'm sorry! :-) So you're saying that as long as it's not applied to an interface, I can have as many acl's as I want? I like to err on the side of caution when I can- the idea of completely removing the working...

Oh- and since you didn't save the changes to the startup config, when it reboots you'll get the old config back again right? So if I remove the access group from the interface but I don't delete the list itself, I can edit it, rename it, and apply the new one while leaving the old one on the...

Whoa- I submitted this before I even saw what you wrote Phil- sorry about that! :-) So that does work?? And Rudeboy, what do you mean by "reload in 5" everytime you log on?

Wow! That's a really good point- I hadn't thought about that. Are you saying I should remove it from the interface first and THEN remove it from the router to avoid being locked out? (What did you do to fix it once that happened?) I’m hoping it won’t be a problem in this case; we have two...

Rudeboy- you're awesome! Thank you so much.

Also, if he decides he doesn't want to remove the old access list but instead wants to just add the new statements to the already existing list, what are the commands to do that? Do you just create the list in config mode and give it the same number as the group you wish to add it to and leave...

Please let me make sure I have this right- I can make changes to the acl by copying it to a text editor and editing it there, putting in the appropriate command while in global config mode (example: no access-list 110), and then pasting in the newly edited list and applying it to an interface...

Sorry everyone; I'm kinda new to this- this is my last question. :-) I have an access list that contains several statements and is already created and working. I now need to add a few more statements to it. I've heard that this can be done without recreating the whole acl- is this true? If so...

Sorry everyone; I'm kinda new to this- this is my last question. :-) I have an access list that contains several statements and is already created and working. I now need to add a few more statements to it. I've heard that this can be done without recreating the whole acl- is this true? If so...

And don't forget about VLANS. :-)

Cool- that's exactly what we want. I really appreciate your help! :-)

Shouldn't it have a .exe extension?

That would explain it then- that's why you're getting an error message stating that it isn't a valid executable- it needs to have a .exe extension. Am I right Davemead?

I can remove the wildcard mask, but would the access list still serve its purpose if I left it in? (I'm just curious now.) In other words, all traffic (from this host to other subnets) that is not specified by the access list will be denied, right?

Actually, it should be inbound instead of outbound shouldn't it?