FQDN in ip access-list?
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
04-16-2020 03:52 PM
Hi, Seems I have found a bug in 8.0.7d where if I use an extended acl with a fully qualified domain name the switch will reboot. I looked at the command reference for this version and it does not say whether or not you can, but when I look at the same doc for 8.0.92 they give an example for a standard ACL, i.e., "IPHost1" as shown below.
device# configure terminal
device(config)# ip access-list standard 1
device(config-std-nacl)# deny host 10.157.22.26 log
device(config-std-nacl)# deny 10.157.29.12 log
device(config-std-nacl)# deny host IPHost1 log
As the device is in production I'm wondering if it is safe to use a standard ACL on 8.0.7d or do I need to upgrade, and if so, what is the next version which support ip access-list with FQDN.
Thanks!
device# configure terminal
device(config)# ip access-list standard 1
device(config-std-nacl)# deny host 10.157.22.26 log
device(config-std-nacl)# deny 10.157.29.12 log
device(config-std-nacl)# deny host IPHost1 log
As the device is in production I'm wondering if it is safe to use a standard ACL on 8.0.7d or do I need to upgrade, and if so, what is the next version which support ip access-list with FQDN.
Thanks!
1 REPLY 1
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
04-17-2020 01:40 AM
Hi Bob
The difference between the documents reflects a correction that was made in the 8.0.80 guide when the commands syntax was updated.
If you have a support contract I would recommend opening a case so that TAC can investigate the issue and recommend the best course of action.
If you don't have a support contract you should consider upgrading to 8.0.90f, ideally test the configuration on a switch before putting it into production if at all possible.
Note that the upgrade to 8.0.90 is a two step process, you should upgrade to 8.0.80e first and then to .90f. Refer to the 8.0.90 upgrade guide for more details.
The difference between the documents reflects a correction that was made in the 8.0.80 guide when the commands syntax was updated.
If you have a support contract I would recommend opening a case so that TAC can investigate the issue and recommend the best course of action.
If you don't have a support contract you should consider upgrading to 8.0.90f, ideally test the configuration on a switch before putting it into production if at all possible.
Note that the upgrade to 8.0.90 is a two step process, you should upgrade to 8.0.80e first and then to .90f. Refer to the 8.0.90 upgrade guide for more details.

