<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:series="https://publishpress.com/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: ACLs&#8230; Closer to the Source or the Destination?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.practicalnetworking.net/series/access-lists/acls-closer-to-the-source-or-the-destination/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.practicalnetworking.net/series/access-lists/acls-closer-to-the-source-or-the-destination/</link>
	<description>Networking presented simply, practically, and applicably</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 08:22:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Alice Diaz		</title>
		<link>https://www.practicalnetworking.net/series/access-lists/acls-closer-to-the-source-or-the-destination/#comment-256229</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alice Diaz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 08:22:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.practicalnetworking.net/?p=2729#comment-256229</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hey! This post really got me thinking about how ACLs can totally shape network security. I’ve always leaned towards source-based rules, but your insights on destination filtering made me rethink my approach. Have you tried any real-world applications that clarify which method is more effective? Also, speaking of clarity, have you checked out &lt;a href=&quot;https://fnaffree.io&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;noopener nofollow ugc&quot;&gt;fnaf&lt;/a&gt;? It offers some cool resources for networking newbies!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey! This post really got me thinking about how ACLs can totally shape network security. I’ve always leaned towards source-based rules, but your insights on destination filtering made me rethink my approach. Have you tried any real-world applications that clarify which method is more effective? Also, speaking of clarity, have you checked out <a href="https://fnaffree.io" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">fnaf</a>? It offers some cool resources for networking newbies!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Redz hub free		</title>
		<link>https://www.practicalnetworking.net/series/access-lists/acls-closer-to-the-source-or-the-destination/#comment-256070</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Redz hub free]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:56:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.practicalnetworking.net/?p=2729#comment-256070</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Access Control Lists (ACLs) should be placed based on their type to maximize network efficiency and security. &lt;strong&gt;Standard ACLs&lt;/strong&gt; are typically placed &lt;strong&gt;closer to the destination&lt;/strong&gt; because they filter traffic only by source IP address, reducing the chance of blocking legitimate traffic unnecessarily. &lt;strong&gt;Extended ACLs&lt;/strong&gt;, on the other hand, should be placed &lt;strong&gt;closer to the source&lt;/strong&gt; since they can filter traffic based on source and destination IP addresses, protocols, and port numbers. Placing extended ACLs near the source prevents unwanted traffic from consuming network bandwidth, improves performance, and enhances overall security by stopping unauthorized traffic as early as possible.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Access Control Lists (ACLs) should be placed based on their type to maximize network efficiency and security. <strong>Standard ACLs</strong> are typically placed <strong>closer to the destination</strong> because they filter traffic only by source IP address, reducing the chance of blocking legitimate traffic unnecessarily. <strong>Extended ACLs</strong>, on the other hand, should be placed <strong>closer to the source</strong> since they can filter traffic based on source and destination IP addresses, protocols, and port numbers. Placing extended ACLs near the source prevents unwanted traffic from consuming network bandwidth, improves performance, and enhances overall security by stopping unauthorized traffic as early as possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: WiseAmberCedar		</title>
		<link>https://www.practicalnetworking.net/series/access-lists/acls-closer-to-the-source-or-the-destination/#comment-256064</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WiseAmberCedar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2026 12:53:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.practicalnetworking.net/?p=2729#comment-256064</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;I’ve always leaned toward destination-side ACLs for simplicity, but the argument about source-side filtering cutting down on unwanted traffic across the network makes me reconsider. Doesn’t that shift also multiply the number of ACLs you have to maintain per source segment?

&#060;a href=&quot;https://nano-bananapro.com/
&quot;&#062;nano-bananapro&#060;/a&#062;&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’ve always leaned toward destination-side ACLs for simplicity, but the argument about source-side filtering cutting down on unwanted traffic across the network makes me reconsider. Doesn’t that shift also multiply the number of ACLs you have to maintain per source segment?</p>
<p>&lt;a href=&#8221;https://nano-bananapro.com/<br />
&#8220;&gt;nano-bananapro&lt;/a&gt;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
