Extract field for matching in .NET framework

Printing DataMatrix in .NET framework Extract field for matching
Extract field for matching
Data Matrix ECC200 Scanner In VS .NET
Using Barcode Control SDK for .NET Control to generate, create, read, scan barcode image in .NET applications.
Field matches rule
Painting Data Matrix In Visual Studio .NET
Using Barcode generator for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create ECC200 image in VS .NET applications.
Single Action (permit/deny, etc)
Data Matrix Recognizer In .NET Framework
Using Barcode recognizer for VS .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in .NET applications.
More rules
Bar Code Creation In VS .NET
Using Barcode creator for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create bar code image in Visual Studio .NET applications.
Deny flow or equivalent null action
Barcode Reader In .NET Framework
Using Barcode decoder for .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in .NET applications.
End of Processing
Data Matrix ECC200 Drawer In Visual C#
Using Barcode creator for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create ECC200 image in Visual Studio .NET applications.
Figure 47 Cisco access list abstraction
ECC200 Creation In .NET Framework
Using Barcode generation for ASP.NET Control to generate, create Data Matrix image in ASP.NET applications.
IP Packet Header
Creating Data Matrix In VB.NET
Using Barcode creator for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create Data Matrix 2d barcode image in .NET applications.
IP Routing Information Payload
Bar Code Generator In VS .NET
Using Barcode creation for VS .NET Control to generate, create barcode image in .NET applications.
Access lists test these fields
Paint USS Code 39 In .NET
Using Barcode encoder for VS .NET Control to generate, create ANSI/AIM Code 39 image in Visual Studio .NET applications.
Distribute lists test these fields
Drawing Barcode In .NET
Using Barcode encoder for VS .NET Control to generate, create barcode image in VS .NET applications.
Figure 48 Cisco access versus distribute list abstraction
Print Delivery Point Barcode (DPBC) In Visual Studio .NET
Using Barcode maker for VS .NET Control to generate, create USPS POSTal Numeric Encoding Technique Barcode image in VS .NET applications.
Translating Service Definitions to Technical Requirements: Policies
Draw Code-128 In Visual Basic .NET
Using Barcode encoder for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create Code-128 image in .NET applications.
Extract field for matching
Barcode Creation In Visual Basic .NET
Using Barcode encoder for Visual Studio .NET Control to generate, create barcode image in .NET framework applications.
Field matches rule
Creating Code 39 Full ASCII In Visual Studio .NET
Using Barcode creation for ASP.NET Control to generate, create Code 3/9 image in ASP.NET applications.
Match Condition
Encode Barcode In Java
Using Barcode generator for Java Control to generate, create bar code image in Java applications.
More rules
USS-128 Creation In VS .NET
Using Barcode maker for ASP.NET Control to generate, create GS1-128 image in ASP.NET applications.
Action Condition (permit/deny, etc)
Generating DataMatrix In Visual Studio .NET
Using Barcode creator for ASP.NET Control to generate, create Data Matrix image in ASP.NET applications.
More match or set rules Deny flow or equivalent null action
Bar Code Creator In Java
Using Barcode printer for Java Control to generate, create bar code image in Java applications.
End of Processing
GTIN - 13 Decoder In VS .NET
Using Barcode recognizer for .NET framework Control to read, scan read, scan image in VS .NET applications.
Figure 49 Cisco route map abstraction
Representative Requirements for Routing Policies
Reasons for defining policies are often economic, reflecting the transit and peering relationships of the AS They may be intended to enhance fault tolerance or load distribution for customers, or they may reflect external regulatory or legal requirements
Defaults and Beyond
RPSL supports the notion of a default route, as do OSPF and ISIS I like to think of default routes as somehow meeting Groucho Marx s criterion for joining private clubs: I wouldn t join any club that would have me as a member Less cynically, the default route is like an ancestral home, where you are always welcome It is quite common to want to have a hierarchy of more and less preferred default routes For example, the most preferred default might be to the ISP with which you have the fastest dedicated link; the next most preferred would be
4
over a slower dedicated link to a different ISP; and the least preferred would be a dial-up to the primary ISP As mentioned earlier, the default route is the route taken when no other route is more preferred There may be multiple levels of default In RPSL, defaults are specified as follows:
default: to <peering> [action <action>] [networks <filter>]
One of the most common relationships between a subscriber and a provider is to have the subscriber announce its address space to the provider, while the provider simply announces the default to the subscriber
aut-num: aut-num: default: AS1 ! the provider AS2 ! the subscriber to AS1
This is certainly adequate for single-homed single-link and single-homed multilink topologies While there may be some suboptimal routing when the simplest version is used at multiple points of attachment to a single provider, the simplicity of the method can make it attractive Slight enhancements can make the routing more efficient Default can be at the granularity of a specific router rather than just an AS:
aut-num: AS1 default: to AS2 7772 at 7771
You can, for example, set preferences among defaults The lower the preference value, the more preferred the default
aut-num: AS1 default: to AS2 action pref = 1; default: to AS3 action pref = 2;
Multilinking and Multihoming
There really is no precise industry definition of multihoming, although work continues on creating one [Berkowitz 2001e; Black 2001] Whatever it may be called, its major objectives are ensuring fault-tolerant connectivity and distribution of workload over multiple resources Conceptually, multihoming can be implemented at almost any OSI layer, but we concentrate here on layer 3, with some discussion of layer 2 You can have multiple physical links to the same service provider without BGP When the multiple links go to the same ISP router, this is called multilinking Multilinking can operate with layer 3 IP load sharing or with layer 2
Translating Service Definitions to Technical Requirements: Policies
techniques such as multilink PPP The most common non-BGP approach is to use load-sharing default routes
Case Study: Basic Internet Access: Huffle, Puffle, and Cetera
Returning to the case of Huffle, Puffle, and Cetera, the routing requirements are quite simple: The firm defaults to its ISP It has multiple defaults, one over the T1 and a less preferred one over dial-ups Since the firm has no independent routing policy, it does not need its own AS Simply for convenience in the RPSL notation, however, I shall assign it the private AS number 64000 The AS that provides the connectivity, however, does need to advertise the firm s providerindependent /24
aut-num: AS64000 default: to AS1 at T1-ROUTER action pref = 1; default: to AS3 at PPP-ROUTER action pref = 2;
It s entirely plausible, for example, that Huffle, Puffle might use multiple T1 links to the service provider, inverse-multiplexed to appear as one link to routing Of course, to get serious redundancy, the links would need to go by different physical paths that do not have significantly different delay (Figure 410)