lelio at uoguelph
Apr 26, 2012, 9:03 AM
Post #5 of 5
yeah, it's a bit of a pain. it took me a while, but i was able to lay out a plan for our toll bypass filters which even if fully populated to one digit less than a wild card, i'm just under. it worked out well. by one digit less a wildcard i mean where i can't use [!8] or [2-9] or something like that.
the thing that irks me is, with relational databases like they are, there's no reason to store the whole human readable clause. why should it read something like:
(OFFICE-CODE == 82 AND LOCAL-AREA-CODE == 226 AND TRANSIT-NETWORK-ESCAPE DOES-NOT-EXIST)
the clauses themselves take up the most of the characters here. while it's great that it's easily readable, i would think that it could be stored more efficiently. just saying.
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
- LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy" <andy.carse [at] gmail>
To: cisco-voip [at] puck
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:58:10 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route filter length -GBNP
Thanks for the info I'll have another go now with the limit in mind.
On 26/04/2012 13:29, Matthew Loraditch wrote:
> Yes this is still the same. The error is shall we say badly worded
> Matthew G. Loraditch - CCVP, CCNA, CCDA
> 1965 Greenspring Drive
> Timonium, MD 21093
> voice. 410.252.8830
> fax. 410.252.9284
> Twitter | Facebook | Website | Email Support
> From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] on behalf of Lelio Fulgenzi [lelio [at] uoguelph]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 8:23 AM
> To: Andy
> Cc: cisco-voip [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] route filter length -GBNP
> The route filter can not be greater than 1023 (or 10 24) characters I believe. This is from tests I completed in v4. I don't believe there have been any changes to this limitation.
> Sent from my iPhone...
> "There's no place like 127.0.0.1"
> On Apr 26, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Andy<andy.carse [at] gmail> wrote:
>> Has anyone come accross an issue with route filters and the number of clauses in a particular filter?
>> I'm using dp-ffr.3-1-21.GB.cop.sgn with CCM 18.104.22.16800-5
>> If I add more than 20 clauses when you click save it replies
>> "Access to the requested resource has been denied".
>> I'll try to thin out the clauses, but just wondered if its a know issue.
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip [at] puck
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck