IP Reservation/MAC

Hi there,

Would it be possible for a PIX 515e to have IP address reservation for the
VPN users based on the MAC address of the remote user?

Thank you,

Julian Dragut

Re: IP Reservation/MAC

In article ,
Julian Dragut wrote:
>Would it be possible for a PIX 515e to have IP address reservation for the
>VPN users based on the MAC address of the remote user?

Please do not multi-post. I addressed your question in your
comp.dcom.sys.cisco posting of the same question.

Re: IP Reservation/MAC

Thank you Walter!

Very knowledgeable!


"Walter Roberson" wrote in message
news:_vYFf.579347$ki.256212@pd7tw2no...
> In article ,
> Julian Dragut wrote:
>>Would it be possible for a PIX 515e to have IP address reservation for the
>>VPN users based on the MAC address of the remote user?
>
> Please do not multi-post. I addressed your question in your
> comp.dcom.sys.cisco posting of the same question.

Re: IP Reservation/MAC

"Walter Roberson" wrote in message
news:_vYFf.579347$ki.256212@pd7tw2no...
> In article ,
> Julian Dragut wrote:
>>Would it be possible for a PIX 515e to have IP address reservation for the
>>VPN users based on the MAC address of the remote user?
>
> Please do not multi-post. I addressed your question in your
> comp.dcom.sys.cisco posting of the same question.

There's nothing wrong with multi-posting. Cross-posting, yes, but he didn't
do that. Not everyone in here reads comp.dcom.sys.cisco as well as this
group.

-Russ.

Re: IP Reservation/MAC

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 08:35:34 -0500, Somebody. wrote:

[snip]

> There's nothing wrong with multi-posting. Cross-posting, yes,
> but he didn't do that.

Cross-posting (with Followup-To!) would be much better than
multi-posting, IMHO. Would you prefer reading the same post
over and over again if someone happens to multi-post to the
groups you read? I know I wouldnt.

--
New and exciting signature!

Re: IP Reservation/MAC

Somebody. wrote:
> "Walter Roberson" wrote in message
> news:_vYFf.579347$ki.256212@pd7tw2no...
>> In article ,
>> Julian Dragut wrote:
>>> Would it be possible for a PIX 515e to have IP address reservation
>>> for the VPN users based on the MAC address of the remote user?
>>
>> Please do not multi-post. I addressed your question in your
>> comp.dcom.sys.cisco posting of the same question.
>
> There's nothing wrong with multi-posting. Cross-posting, yes, but he
> didn't do that. Not everyone in here reads comp.dcom.sys.cisco as
> well as this group.

Actually there's *everything* wrong with multiposting. If something
really appears to be on-topic in more than one group: cross-post it and
set a f'up to the most fitting group, so the discussion can take place
in this one group. Anyone interested in the topic can subscribe to that
group (if they aren't anyway), anyone not interested won't be bothered.

cu
59cobalt
--
"Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time learning."
--Joel Spolsky

Re: IP Reservation/MAC

"Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers" wrote in message
news:44uj86F42pk6U2@individual.net...
> Somebody. wrote:
>> "Walter Roberson" wrote in message
>> news:_vYFf.579347$ki.256212@pd7tw2no...
>>> In article ,
>>> Julian Dragut wrote:
>>>> Would it be possible for a PIX 515e to have IP address reservation
>>>> for the VPN users based on the MAC address of the remote user?
>>>
>>> Please do not multi-post. I addressed your question in your
>>> comp.dcom.sys.cisco posting of the same question.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with multi-posting. Cross-posting, yes, but he
>> didn't do that. Not everyone in here reads comp.dcom.sys.cisco as
>> well as this group.
>
> Actually there's *everything* wrong with multiposting. If something
> really appears to be on-topic in more than one group: cross-post it and
> set a f'up to the most fitting group, so the discussion can take place
> in this one group. Anyone interested in the topic can subscribe to that
> group (if they aren't anyway), anyone not interested won't be bothered.
>

If one crossposts, everybody still has to see it in both groups. However,
people in one group are drawn into a discussion that occurs also inside
another group, where the audience is not what they might expect, the frame
of reference may be different, and the skilsets might be different.

If one multiposts, people within a group see it, and their conversation is
not replicated elsewhere.

For readers, people participating in both groups will see it in both groups
either way, with most news readers. People participating in one group, will
see and discuss it only within the context of that group.

For the poster, the topic will be approached in two different ways based on
the approach within the two different groups. Therefore, although he must
maintain two separate threads, he may gain insights by seen two different
approaches, rather than in some cases watching the two different camps argue
about who is right.

Multi-posts may be a slight inconvenience to you, but I've seen crossposts
erupt into incredible flame wars and off topic discussions *far* more often,
which reduces the quality of the usenet experience for everyone in my
opinion. Except those that enjoy flame wars. In many cases, a crossposted
post simply becomes noise in the group it's not best suited for, going on
forever to the inconvenience of all within that other group, while the main
group it was posted in has a lively discussion on it. A multiposted post
that isn't in the group it's best suited for will either live or die on it's
own merits within the group, and if it sparks no discussion, then none must
be endured by the group members that are clearly not interested in it.

-Russ.

Re: IP Reservation/MAC

In article ,
Somebody. wrote:

>If one crossposts, everybody still has to see it in both groups.

Not in newsreaders I am familiar with: they follow the Newsgroups:
and Xref: lines and mark the posting as read in every newsgroup in
which it occurs -- and they do that even for messages which have been
automatically "killed" based upon the user's killfile criteria.

>For the poster, the topic will be approached in two different ways based on
>the approach within the two different groups. Therefore, although he must
>maintain two separate threads, he may gain insights by seen two different
>approaches, rather than in some cases watching the two different camps argue
>about who is right.

And meanwhile, the readers in each group are replicating the
research and explanatory time that is going on in the other groups,
and not being able to draw upon the insights of those other posters
to synthesize a complete answer.

Re: IP Reservation/MAC

"Walter Roberson" wrote in message
news:Z1sGf.359777$tl.12200@pd7tw3no...
> In article ,
> Somebody. wrote:
>
>>If one crossposts, everybody still has to see it in both groups.
>
> Not in newsreaders I am familiar with: they follow the Newsgroups:
> and Xref: lines and mark the posting as read in every newsgroup in
> which it occurs -- and they do that even for messages which have been
> automatically "killed" based upon the user's killfile criteria.
>
>>For the poster, the topic will be approached in two different ways based
>>on
>>the approach within the two different groups. Therefore, although he must
>>maintain two separate threads, he may gain insights by seen two different
>>approaches, rather than in some cases watching the two different camps
>>argue
>>about who is right.
>
> And meanwhile, the readers in each group are replicating the
> research and explanatory time that is going on in the other groups,
> and not being able to draw upon the insights of those other posters
> to synthesize a complete answer.

Well, this is one of those debates that can rage on for as long as you want
then I guess. You see it your way, I see it mine. To some degree I think
it depends on what sort of newsgroups you frequent, and if crossposting is
used carefully and responsibly or not.

-Russ.

Re: IP Reservation/MAC

Somebody. wrote:
> "Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers" wrote in message
> news:44uj86F42pk6U2@individual.net...
>> Actually there's *everything* wrong with multiposting. If something
>> really appears to be on-topic in more than one group: cross-post it
>> and set a f'up to the most fitting group, so the discussion can take
>> place in this one group. Anyone interested in the topic can subscribe
>> to that group (if they aren't anyway), anyone not interested won't be
>> bothered.
>
> If one crossposts, everybody still has to see it in both groups.
> However, people in one group are drawn into a discussion that occurs
> also inside another group, where the audience is not what they might
> expect, the frame of reference may be different, and the skilsets
> might be different.

Everybody sees the *OP* in both groups. The whole subsequent discussion
will continue in exactly *one* group. And after reading a posting in one
group, any decent newsreader will mark the same posting in every other
group as read.

> If one multiposts, people within a group see it, and their
> conversation is not replicated elsewhere.

The conversation isn't replicated at all. It takes place where it's
most on-topic. That's the whole point.

> For readers, people participating in both groups will see it in both
> groups either way, with most news readers.

Most definitely not. You obviously don't understand how Followup-To
works.

> People participating in one group, will see and discuss it only within
> the context of that group.

Which is exactly the problem.

> For the poster, the topic will be approached in two different ways
> based on the approach within the two different groups. Therefore,
> although he must maintain two separate threads, he may gain insights
> by seen two different approaches, rather than in some cases watching
> the two different camps argue about who is right.

That's woolly thinking. More likely is that he'll miss out on insights
he might have gained through synergy effects (person A making a comment
that inspires a subsequent comment of person B).

> Multi-posts may be a slight inconvenience to you,

They are a major inconvenience to most regulars.

> but I've seen crossposts erupt into incredible flame wars and off
> topic discussions *far* more often, which reduces the quality of the
> usenet experience for everyone in my opinion.

I usually see this happen only when people lack either basic skills of
netiquette or handling their killfiles or both.

> In many cases, a crossposted post simply becomes noise in the group
> it's not best suited for, going on forever to the inconvenience of all
> within that other group, while the main group it was posted in has a
> lively discussion on it.

It does not. It's a single posting that can be easily ignored and will
drop out of sight after a few days, because *each* subsequent posting
will be directed to the group given in the Followup-To.

> A multiposted post that isn't in the group it's best suited for will
> either live or die on it's own merits within the group, and if it
> sparks no discussion, then none must be endured by the group members
> that are clearly not interested in it.

IOW a multiposted post will become noise in almost every group it's
posted to. And since the discussion stays in that group, it will become
one hell of a lot more noise than a crossposting in those groups.

cu
59cobalt
--
"Der Computer ist da, um zu rechnen, nicht um Ausreden wie 'Kann nicht
durch Null teilen' auf den Bildschirm zu schreiben."
--Marco Haschka in de.org.ccc

Re: IP Reservation/MAC

In article ,
Somebody. wrote:

>"Walter Roberson" wrote in message
>news:Z1sGf.359777$tl.12200@pd7tw3no...
>> And meanwhile, the readers in each group are replicating the
>> research and explanatory time that is going on in the other groups,
>> and not being able to draw upon the insights of those other posters
>> to synthesize a complete answer.

>Well, this is one of those debates that can rage on for as long as you want
>then I guess. You see it your way, I see it mine.

Consider it from the point of view of the people who put in a lot of
time answering questions. They post an answer in one newsgroup,
and then they see the same question in another newsgroup. What do
they do? Just post an "I already answered this!" notice? Or do they
go and find the googlegroups link to their new posting and post
that? Or do they go back and take a copy of their previous answer
and post it in the other location(s)? Given the different topic
concentrations of the different newsgroups, are the question
answerers expected to post their answer to the other location(s),
except editted to reflect the prime interest of the other location(s) ?


The OP posted a Cisco PIX firewall specific question, and multi-posted
it to the Cisco specific newsgroup and to the firewalls newsgroup.
Under your theory of parallel discussions, the Cisco newsgroup
concentrates on the Cisco-isms of the question, and someone else
in the firewall newsgroup answers the more general firewallish
aspects. Except that because the question was series specific,
if someone who doesn't know the device well answers in the
firewall newsgroup, chances are that someone who -does- know
the device well is going to have to step in and spend time
correcting the other posters -- time that would not have to be
spent if the other posters had seen the specialized information
that went by in the Cisco newsgroup.

Re: IP Reservation/MAC

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
, Somebody. wrote:

>Multi-posts may be a slight inconvenience to you, but I've seen crossposts
>erupt into incredible flame wars and off topic discussions *far* more often,
>which reduces the quality of the usenet experience for everyone in my
>opinion.

How many news groups do you follow? 2? 3? Multiposts get real old real
fast when you are looking at 80 to 100 newsgroups every day. Most of those
flame wars can be eliminated by simply blocking posts to certain groups with
a killfile. An example is killing posts crossposted to any newsgroup that
has the word 'advocacy' in the name. You can do that for any hot button
group. Most multiposters don't crosspost simply because they are not aware
of the possibility. The dumb ones are often multiposting because they don't
want to use a search engine first (which would provide the answer to their
question in the majority of cases), and are shot-gunning to groups that have
a word in the name that might be relevant. Problem is, the news server I'm
reading from carries 37 groups with the word 'firewall' and 237 with the
word 'security' in the name.

>In many cases, a crossposted post simply becomes noise in the group it's
>not best suited for, going on forever to the inconvenience of all within
>that other group, while the main group it was posted in has a lively
>discussion on it.

When a 'Followup-To:' header is used, the discussion continues in that
group, and ceases in the groups that were spewed to. Also, if such
cross-posting disturbs you, most newsreaders can killfile on the number
of groups listed in the Newsgroup: or Xref: headers.

>A multiposted post that isn't in the group it's best suited for will
>either live or die on it's own merits within the group, and if it sparks
>no discussion, then none must be endured by the group members that are
>clearly not interested in it.

I have an easier solution. When I find someone who likes to multipost, I
have a very commodious killfile.

Old guy