Cisco ios

[Flyingbull]

Originally Posted by thecoldone06

Check out this site:

http://www.networkclue.com/routing/C...sts/index.aspx

Very nice explanation of ACL's. Also at the bottom is a continuation on applying them. According to that article, check out the below and see what you think.

access-list 100 permit ip 192.168.10.0 0.0.0.255 any 
            #allows all internal network traffic out of router

access-list 101 permit tcp any 192.168.10.0 0.0.0.255 established
           #Allows established connections from outside back in     
             (originated internally)

access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq telnet    #need this for my access
access-list 101 permit udp any any eq 23	        #Active FTP
access-list 101 permit tcp any eq ftp-data any  #Active FTP
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq ftp       #FTP
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq pop3
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 143	
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 587	#smtp
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 3000	#Web-e-mail
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 3389	#RDP
access-list 101 permit udp any any eq 3389	#RDP
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 5631	#PCA
access-list 101 permit udp any any eq 5632	#PCA
access-list 101 deny   ip any any

interface Serial0/0/0
 description T1 line #1
 ip address 1xx.xxx.198.xxx 255.255.255.252
 ip access-group 101 in
 ip access-group 100 out
 ip nat outside
!
interface Serial0/1/0
 description T1 line #2
 ip address 1xx.xxx.198.xxx 255.255.255.252
 ip access-group 101 in
 ip access-group 100 out
 ip nat outside
!

I took out the following:

access-list 101 permit udp any any
#shouldn't need this

Then on the serial interfaces iv made the access group 100 outbound. I'm not a NAT guru so im not positive list 100 is even being applied. Thill for sure allow the traffic out. What do ya think?

When I was reading up on IOS, I found it odd that in the interface section list 100 was never mentioned. (or orginally list 1). I was thinking that might be the problem, lack of experience has been my road block on this, I wasn't sure if it was referenced by the Nat statement indirectly or not, since the nat defines it in the pool overload statement.