From: Peter Puczko (ppuczko@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2001 - 10:27:06 GMT-3
Honestly I am 90% sure.
I was told by a guy who was working with mainfarmes and NetBIOS a lot that
0xf0f0 0x0101 (NetBIOS) and 0x0000 0x0d0d (SNA) permits both command and
response frames (which have saps incremented by one).
Peter
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:38:59 +0800, jiangyuanshun wrote:
> Peter Puczko£¬
>
> i see it on the Andrew Bruce Caslow's book ,it looks like:
> 0xf0f0 0x0001
> is it the same like 0xf0f0 0x0101?
> does anyone test it?
> can anyone explain for me why it can't be writen like this:
> 0xf0f0 0x0000
>
> ÔÚ 01-2-20 13:01:00 ÄúдµÀ£º
> >I hope it was a typo, should be:
> >
> >0xf0f0 0x0101 ----NetBios
> >0x0000 0x0d0d ----SNA
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:55:52 -0800, sanjay wrote:
> >
> >> 0xf0f0 0x0101 ----SNA
> >> 0x0000 0x0d0d ----NetBios
> >> 0x0000 0xffff ----For all other traffic
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Jay Chandradas" <jachandr@cisco.com>
> >> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:16 AM
> >> Subject: SNA and NetBios ACL
> >>
> >>
> >> > hi,
> >> >
> >> > I am a bit confused on ACL for SNA and NetBios. I see different
ACL in
> >> > different books. Just want to know what I use is correct:
> >> >
> >> > I use: for permiting SNA : access-list 200 permit 0x0404 0x0101
> >> > access-list 200 per
0x0004
> >> > 0x0101
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > for permiting NetBios : access-list 201 per 0xf0f0 0x0101
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Is this okey.. or do u have to permit any other values:
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Jay.
> >> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:55 GMT-3