<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic RE: QoS ACL To Re-Mark DSCP in Network Architecture &amp; Design</title>
    <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/qos-acl-to-re-mark-dscp/m-p/13188#M592</link>
    <description>I created a KB article for this as well. You can find it &lt;A href="https://gtacknowledge.extremenetworks.com/articles/Q_A/Can-an-ACL-match-on-a-range-of-port-numbers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener"&gt;here&lt;/A&gt;.</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>BrandonC</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-06-08T20:12:00Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>QoS ACL To Re-Mark DSCP</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/qos-acl-to-re-mark-dscp/m-p/13185#M589</link>
      <description>Hi all&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
I want to re-mark to DSCP zero any traffic coming in which is outside of a particular UDP &amp;amp; TCP port range.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
I'll need to use an ACL but would I have to list every single port in the range - I don't think I can use &amp;lt; &amp;gt; symbols in a policy can I?&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
I realise this is the wrong syntax, but in essence the policy below describes what I'm trying to achieve.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Does anyone have a better way to do this?&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Entry  allow_udp_range {&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
    If   {protocol udp; destination-port &amp;gt; nnnn  AND destination-port  &amp;lt; nnnn}  possibly 60 ports&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
                then&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
                    {permit;}}&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
    Entry allow_tcp_range {&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
If   {protocol tcp; destination-port &amp;gt; nnnn  AND destination-port &amp;lt; nnnn}  possibly 100 or so ports&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
                    then&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
                    {permit;}}&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
    Entry re-mark_everything_else {&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
If    {any}&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
                    then&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
                    {Qosprofile  qp1;&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
                    Replace-dscp;}}&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2015 19:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/qos-acl-to-re-mark-dscp/m-p/13185#M589</guid>
      <dc:creator>Stephen_Elliot1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-06-08T19:38:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE: QoS ACL To Re-Mark DSCP</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/qos-acl-to-re-mark-dscp/m-p/13186#M590</link>
      <description>Hi Stephen,&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
You can specify a port range for a match condition. For example, to match on TCP ports 120-150, you could do the following:&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
entry allow_tcp_range {     if {         protocol tcp;         destination-port 120-150;     } then {         permit;     } }&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
You can also use '&amp;lt;', '&amp;gt;', '&amp;lt;=', and '&amp;gt;=' in policy files as well. For example,&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
entry deny_udp_&amp;gt;1024 {     if {         protocol udp;         destination-port &amp;gt; 1024;     } then {         deny;     } }&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
-Brandon</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/qos-acl-to-re-mark-dscp/m-p/13186#M590</guid>
      <dc:creator>BrandonC</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-06-08T20:09:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE: QoS ACL To Re-Mark DSCP</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/qos-acl-to-re-mark-dscp/m-p/13187#M591</link>
      <description>Excellent! thanks for your reply, Brandon.&lt;BR /&gt;
I'll give it a go.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/qos-acl-to-re-mark-dscp/m-p/13187#M591</guid>
      <dc:creator>Stephen_Elliot1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-06-08T20:12:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE: QoS ACL To Re-Mark DSCP</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/qos-acl-to-re-mark-dscp/m-p/13188#M592</link>
      <description>I created a KB article for this as well. You can find it &lt;A href="https://gtacknowledge.extremenetworks.com/articles/Q_A/Can-an-ACL-match-on-a-range-of-port-numbers/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener"&gt;here&lt;/A&gt;.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/network-architecture-design/qos-acl-to-re-mark-dscp/m-p/13188#M592</guid>
      <dc:creator>BrandonC</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-06-08T20:12:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

