2012-07-11 18:33:36 +00:00
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; Named Access Control Lists (ACLs)
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; A convenient way to share acl definitions
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; This configuration file is read on startup
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; CLI Commands
|
|
|
|
|
; -----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
; acl show Show all named ACLs configured
|
|
|
|
|
; acl show <name> Show contents of a particular named ACL
|
|
|
|
|
; reload acl Reload configuration file
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; Any configuration that uses ACLs which has been made to be able to use named
|
|
|
|
|
; ACLs will specify a named ACL with the 'acl' option in its configuration in
|
|
|
|
|
; a similar fashion to the usual 'permit' and 'deny' options. Example:
|
|
|
|
|
; acl=my_named_acl
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; Multiple named ACLs can be applied by either comma separating the arguments or
|
|
|
|
|
; just by adding additional ACL lines. Example:
|
|
|
|
|
; acl=my_named_acl
|
|
|
|
|
; acl=my_named_acl2
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; or
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; acl=my_named_acl,my_named_acl2
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; ACLs specified by name are evaluated independently from the ACL specified via
|
|
|
|
|
; permit/deny. In order for an address to pass a given ACL, it must pass both
|
|
|
|
|
; the ACL specified by permit/deny for a given item as well as any named ACLs
|
|
|
|
|
; that were specified.
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
;[example_named_acl1]
|
|
|
|
|
;deny=0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0
|
|
|
|
|
;permit=209.16.236.0
|
|
|
|
|
;permit=209.16.236.1
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
;[example_named_acl2]
|
|
|
|
|
;permit=0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0
|
|
|
|
|
;deny=10.24.20.171
|
|
|
|
|
;deny=10.24.20.103
|
|
|
|
|
;deny=209.16.236.1
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; example_named_acl1 above shows an example of whitelisting. When whitelisting, the
|
|
|
|
|
; named ACLs should follow a deny that blocks everything (like deny=0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0)
|
|
|
|
|
; The following example explains how combining the ACLs works:
|
|
|
|
|
; <in another configuration>
|
|
|
|
|
; [example_item_with_acl]
|
|
|
|
|
; acl=example_named_acl1
|
|
|
|
|
; acl=example_named_acl2
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; Suppose 209.16.236.0 tries to communicate and the ACL for that example is applied to it...
|
|
|
|
|
; First, example_named_acl1 is evaluated. The address is allowed by that ACL.
|
|
|
|
|
; Next, example_named_acl2 is evaluated. The address isn't blocked by example_named_acl2
|
|
|
|
|
; either, so it passes.
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; Suppose instead 209.16.236.1 tries to communicate and the same ACL is applied.
|
|
|
|
|
; First, example_named_acl1 is evaluated and the address is allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
; However, it is blocked by example_named_acl2, so the address is blocked from the combined
|
|
|
|
|
; ACL.
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; Similarly, the permits/denies in specific configurations that make up an ACL definition
|
|
|
|
|
; are also treated as a separate ACL for evaluation. So if we change the example above to:
|
|
|
|
|
; <in another configuration>
|
|
|
|
|
; [example_item_with_acl]
|
|
|
|
|
; acl=example_named_acl1
|
|
|
|
|
; acl=example_named_acl2
|
|
|
|
|
; deny=209.16.236.0
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; Then 209.16.236.0 will be rejected by the non-named component of the combined ACL even
|
|
|
|
|
; though it passes the two named components.
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
; Named ACLs can use ipv6 addresses just like normal ACLs.
|
|
|
|
|
;[ipv6_example_1]
|
2024-05-05 16:20:15 +02:00
|
|
|
;deny = ::/0
|
2012-07-11 18:33:36 +00:00
|
|
|
;permit = ::1/128
|
|
|
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
|
;[ipv6_example_2]
|
|
|
|
|
;permit = fe80::21d:bad:fad:2323
|
