Access-list VS Mac access-list to filter IPX

nydimka23nydimka23
in CCIE Routing & Switching Technical

Can someone tell me the difference between following:

!
mac access-list extended IPX
 permit any any 0x8137 0x0
!

and

!
access-list 200 permit 0x8137 0x0
!

 

Thanks

D.

· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • nydimka23nydimka23

    Should have added .. diffirence other than one is NAMED acl and another numbered ... any functional differences?

    Can someone tell me the difference between following:

    !
    mac access-list extended IPX
     permit any any 0x8137 0x0
    !

    and

    !
    access-list 200 permit 0x8137 0x0
    !

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Scott MorrisScott Morris
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">





    Where are you applying them?  From a technical standpoint, no, there's
    no difference.  But VACLs will use either IP access lists (not 200) or
    MAC access lists (not numbered).






     



    Scott Morris, CCIEx4
    (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,

    JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.

    CCSI #21903, JNCI-M, JNCI-ER

    [email protected]



    Internetwork Expert, Inc.

    http://www.InternetworkExpert.com

    Toll Free: 877-224-8987

    Outside US: 775-826-4344



    Knowledge is power.

    Power corrupts.

    Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......






    nydimka23 wrote:

    Can someone tell me the difference between following:

    !

    mac access-list extended IPX

     permit any any 0x8137 0x0

    !

    and

    !

    access-list 200 permit 0x8137 0x0

    !

     

    Thanks

    D.







    Internetwork Expert - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation

    http://www.internetworkexpert.com



    Subscription information may be found at:

    http://www.ieoc.com/forums/ForumSubscriptions.aspx

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • nydimka23nydimka23

    I am using them in class-map to classify traffic.

    Where are you applying them?  From a technical standpoint, no, there's no difference.  But VACLs will use either IP access lists (not 200) or MAC access lists (not numbered).

     

     

    Scott Morris, CCIEx4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Scott MorrisScott Morris
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">





    Then both should work just fine.






     





    nydimka23 wrote:

    I am using them in class-map to classify traffic.


    imageScott
    Morris:

    Where are you applying them?  From a technical standpoint, no,
    there's no difference.  But VACLs will use either IP access lists (not
    200) or MAC access lists (not numbered).

     

     

    Scott Morris, CCIEx4
    (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,









    Internetwork Expert - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation

    http://www.internetworkexpert.com



    Subscription information may be found at:

    http://www.ieoc.com/forums/ForumSubscriptions.aspx

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • taburleytaburley ✭

    When IPX was still very common Cisco standard ACL numbers for IPX were/are 800 and 900.  Would be much easier with a permit any for QoS than trying to remember the hex ID for IPX.  Just a thought.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.