{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jathanism/acl/issues/18","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jathanism/acl","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jathanism/acl/issues/18/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jathanism/acl/issues/18/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jathanism/acl/issues/18/events","html_url":"https://github.com/jathanism/acl/issues/18","id":154081420,"number":18,"title":"Add support for \"vrrp\" protocol keyword in Juniper firewall filters","user":{"login":"jathanism","id":138052,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/138052?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jathanism","html_url":"https://github.com/jathanism","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jathanism/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jathanism/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jathanism/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jathanism/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jathanism/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jathanism/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jathanism/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jathanism/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jathanism/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2016-05-10T19:00:33Z","updated_at":"2016-05-10T19:00:33Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Currently the ACL parser only supports the numeric form (112) to specify vrrp as a protocol. Example:\r\n\r\n    term permit-vrrp {\r\n                from {\r\n                    destination-address {\r\n                        224.0.0.18/32;\r\n                    }\r\n                    protocol vrrp;\r\n                }\r\n                then accept;\r\n            }\r\n    }\r\n\r\nEnhance the parser to support either form. This was explicitly disabled in the past because it breaks parsing of certain Cisco access-lists. We can find a way!"}}