prioritize traffic on PIX?

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Brian Bergin, May 17, 2005.

  1. Brian Bergin

    Brian Bergin Guest

    Using a PIX 501 or 506E and 6.3(4) is it possible to give higher priority to
    traffic on specific UDP ports, say VOIP ports? TIA...

    Thanks...
    Brian Bergin

    I can be reached via e-mail at
    cisco_dot_news_at_comcept_dot_net.

    Please post replies to the group so all may benefit.

    NOTICE: Use of this information is contingent upon acceptance of Paragraph 17 of Terabyte's Terms and conditions located at http://terabyte.net/terms.htm#postings.
     
    Brian Bergin, May 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    Brian Bergin <> wrote:
    :Using a PIX 501 or 506E and 6.3(4) is it possible to give higher priority to
    :traffic on specific UDP ports, say VOIP ports?

    No. Wait till 7.0(x) [if that ever reaches the 501 or 506/506E...]


    :NOTICE: Use of this information is contingent upon acceptance of Paragraph 17 of Terabyte's Terms and conditions located at http://terabyte.net/terms.htm#postings.

    The only "information" that I saw was your email address. There are
    many different ways to "use" that information, only a small number of
    which involve actually sending email.

    You and Terabyte have no authority to impose "implied contracts" on
    readers of public messages.


    NOTICE: Use of this information is contingent upon acceptance of
    Paragraph 17 of the terms and conditions of the
    Canada Eat The Cookie Foundation (which require you to bring home-baked
    cookies to your next staff meeting.)
    --
    "Never install telephone wiring during a lightning storm." -- Linksys
     
    Walter Roberson, May 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brian Bergin

    Brian Bergin Guest

    -cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:

    |In article <>,
    |Brian Bergin <> wrote:
    |:Using a PIX 501 or 506E and 6.3(4) is it possible to give higher priority to
    |:traffic on specific UDP ports, say VOIP ports?
    |
    |No. Wait till 7.0(x) [if that ever reaches the 501 or 506/506E...]

    :-(

    Time to find a new firewall vendor.

    |
    |:NOTICE: Use of this information is contingent upon acceptance of Paragraph 17 of Terabyte's Terms and conditions located at http://terabyte.net/terms.htm#postings.
    |
    |The only "information" that I saw was your email address. There are
    |many different ways to "use" that information, only a small number of
    |which involve actually sending email.
    |
    |You and Terabyte have no authority to impose "implied contracts" on
    |readers of public messages.

    Our attorney's would disagree, at least in the US. Every KB posted on most
    company's sites are provided As-Is and you may choose to use or not to use it at
    your own risk. That's simply what our disclaimer states.

    Thanks...
    Brian Bergin

    I can be reached via e-mail at
    cisco_dot_news_at_comcept_dot_net.

    Please post replies to the group so all may benefit.

    NOTICE: Use of this information is contingent upon acceptance of Paragraph 17 of Terabyte's Terms and conditions located at http://terabyte.net/terms.htm#postings.
     
    Brian Bergin, May 17, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    Brian Bergin <> wrote:
    :|You and Terabyte have no authority to impose "implied contracts" on
    :|readers of public messages.

    :Our attorney's would disagree, at least in the US.

    Your attorney's would be wrong. No implied contract can be enforced
    in the USA without the parties indicating by their actions
    that they agree to the contract, or else that one of the parties
    would be "unjustly enriched" by refusing to recognize the contract
    (i.e., refusal to pay for emergency medical services to an unconcious
    patient.)

    Furthermore, in order for a contract to exist in the USA, there must
    be an exchange of "consideration" -- both parties must gain something
    by the contract.

    Ignoring a implied contract is NOT consent to the contract -- and
    I will state outright that I do NOT agree to the implied contract you
    attempt to impose on your postings. I also deny that any contract
    is formed, as I am offered no "consideration" in exchange for
    my aquiesence to the implied contract. Remember, you are not
    providing value to me: I am providing value (time, experience, answers)
    to you.


    I cannot force you to get rid of the attempted implied contract, but
    immediately after this message I will be adding you to my
    comp.dcom.sys.cisco KILLFILE, so that I do not run the risk of
    being bound by your implied contract. If you choose to drop the
    implied contract, then you know how to reach me by email.
    --
    Studies show that the average reader ignores 106% of all statistics
    they see in .signatures.
     
    Walter Roberson, May 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Brian Bergin

    Brian Bergin Guest

    -cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:

    |In article <>,
    |Brian Bergin <> wrote:
    |:|You and Terabyte have no authority to impose "implied contracts" on
    |:|readers of public messages.
    |
    |:Our attorney's would disagree, at least in the US.
    |
    |Your attorney's would be wrong. No implied contract can be enforced
    |in the USA without the parties indicating by their actions
    |that they agree to the contract, or else that one of the parties
    |would be "unjustly enriched" by refusing to recognize the contract
    |(i.e., refusal to pay for emergency medical services to an unconcious
    |patient.)

    Nice to meet you, Walter Roberson, Esq.

    |
    |Furthermore, in order for a contract to exist in the USA, there must
    |be an exchange of "consideration" -- both parties must gain something
    |by the contract.
    |
    |Ignoring a implied contract is NOT consent to the contract -- and
    |I will state outright that I do NOT agree to the implied contract you
    |attempt to impose on your postings. I also deny that any contract
    |is formed, as I am offered no "consideration" in exchange for
    |my aquiesence to the implied contract. Remember, you are not
    |providing value to me: I am providing value (time, experience, answers)
    |to you.
    |
    |
    |I cannot force you to get rid of the attempted implied contract, but
    |immediately after this message I will be adding you to my
    |comp.dcom.sys.cisco KILLFILE, so that I do not run the risk of
    |being bound by your implied contract. If you choose to drop the
    |implied contract, then you know how to reach me by email.

    If I ask a question and don't post any recommendations you may be right, there's
    no exchange of consideration; however, if I post a recommendation to someone in
    a group, and I post in many, that may or may not work in any given situation
    then this helps indemnify us if the solution doesn't work for the specific
    individual. Say someone wants to know how to do something on a 2003 Server and
    I tell them how we did it, if they try it my way and blow up their system
    they're on their own as I've stated that in order to use my method as posted by
    me they must agree to it. Microsoft, Cisco, and others often post this type of
    disclaimer in their KB articles. The sig is generic, posted to all posts a
    Terabyte employee makes, obviously if I'm asking a question there's unlikely to
    be any implied exchange for the benefit of the other party so my disclaimer
    would not apply.

    In fact, you post enough here are you not concerned about the potential
    liability of posting something that's wrong or otherwise doesn't work for one or
    more persons reading your posts? Have you never posted anything that could work
    for one person and not necessarily another? In this court-happy world,
    disclaimers are always a good thing. Enforceable? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm
    betting they go a long way when a judge asks 'so did you see his disclaimer that
    said it might or might not work for you and that you should take all steps to
    ensure your system's safety and backup status before you started?'

    Anyway, your knowledge is always appreciated and helpful. When you and both
    pass our respective Bar exams we can revisit this...

    Thanks...
    Brian Bergin

    I can be reached via e-mail at
    cisco_dot_news_at_comcept_dot_net.

    Please post replies to the group so all may benefit.

    NOTICE: Use of this information is contingent upon acceptance of Paragraph 17 of Terabyte's Terms and conditions located at http://terabyte.net/terms.htm#postings.
     
    Brian Bergin, May 17, 2005
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    7,866
    aliatad
    Sep 11, 2012
  2. ESM
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    4,841
  3. Phillip Wendell

    How to prioritize voice within multipoint

    Phillip Wendell, Dec 10, 2003, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    481
    Phillip Wendell
    Dec 10, 2003
  4. =?Utf-8?B?VG9tbXk=?=

    Prioritize Nics

    =?Utf-8?B?VG9tbXk=?=, May 29, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    470
    J.P. Stewart [MS]
    May 31, 2006
  5. 05hammer
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    927
    Trendkill
    Jan 31, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page