03-07-2011 02:50 PM
In IOS I had some ACL's that made use of the wildcard mask with generic network/host addresses to perform a limited load balancing function. I'm trying to see if I can do the same thing on a Juniper switch as the egress Port filters are very nice and would reduce my interface usage for this application.
I would like to match source-addresses based on the last 2 bits of the IP Address, no matter what the prefix is, and the wildcard masks made this very easy, ie in this ACE:
access-list 1 permit 0.0.0.1 255.255.255.252 access-list 1 remark Allow IPs ending with 01 bits only access-list 2 permit 0.0.0.2 255.255.255.252 access-list 2 remark Allow IPs ending with 10 bits only
My question is whether the following filter config will allow for the same functionality, or does the prefix I put in the term from section have to actually match the incoming traffic?
filter INCOMING01 {
term 01 {
from {
source-address {
0.0.0.1/30;
}
}
}
}
filter INCOMING10 {
term 10 {
from {
source-address {
0.0.0.2/30;
}
}
}
}
03-08-2011 01:50 AM
Hello,
In JUNOS, one cannot use Cisco inverse ACL match in prefix-lists:
aarseniev@abernathy# set policy-options prefix-list tst1 0.0.0.2/30
^
host portion is not zero (0.0.0.0/30) at '0.0.0.2/30'
{master:0}[edit]
aarseniev@abernathy# set policy-options prefix-list tst1 0.0.0.2/255.255.255.252
^
invalid input at '/255.255.255.252' in address '0.0.0.2/255.255.255.252' at '0.0.0.2/255.255.255.252'
You can use non-contiguous netmask in firewall filters though. I believe Cisco-style 0.0.0.2/255.255.255.252 should be written as 0.0.0.2/0.0.0.3 in JUNOS:
aarseniev@abernathy# set firewall family inet filter flt1 term 1 from source-address 0.0.0.2/0.0.0.3
{master:0}[edit]
aarseniev@abernathy# commit check
configuration check succeeds
{master:0}[edit]
aarseniev@abernathy# show | compare
[edit]
+ firewall {
+ family inet {
+ filter flt1 {
+ term 1 {
+ from {
+ source-address {
+ 0.0.0.2/0.0.0.3;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ }
What I haven't checked whether this filter actually filters pkts from source IPs ending with 10 binary.
Would you please be able to test and report back?
HTH
Regards
Alex
03-08-2011 08:17 AM
aarseniev - That definitely looks promising, I will test that out today and let you know if that works. Thanks!
03-09-2011 08:27 AM
aarseniev, Thanks for the suggestion but unfortunately it doesn't work with the inverse mask. It doesn't use the same AND comparison logic as a wildcard mask and tries to still match the prefix it seems.