From: Mike Hess (mahess@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Oct 18 2000 - 16:39:25 GMT-3
Sorry I had a typo. The range you were summarizing was
160.0.0.0-175.255.255.255 not 173.255.255.255. Here you are summarizing 4096
24 bit subnets while my answer summarizes 16 which wastes fewer addresses.
For instance 160.10.9.0 will not be summarized.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hess" <mahess@home.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 14:52
Subject: Re: Summarization
> Only if you want to summarize 160.0.0.0 - 173.255.255.255. That was not
the
> original question. The original question was was in the form of
> x.10.10.0/24. I was just being more specific instead of taking the easy
way
> out and including everything under the sun. You could also use 0.0.0.0 but
> that also does not answer the original question. The 1's and 0's in
wildcard
> or subnet masks do not have to be contiguous. You are right about one
thing
> though, this is not difficult stuff.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Konstantin Kostenko" <konstantin.kostenko@worldnet.att.net>
> To: "Mike Hess" <mahess@home.com>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 14:40
> Subject: Re: Summarization
>
>
> >
> >
> > Mike Hess wrote:
> > >
> > > The the masks here are all wildcard masks not subnet masks. I believe
to
> > > summarize 160.10.10.0/24, 161.10.10.0/24, and 170.10.10.0/24 into 1
> route
> > > would be a subnet mask of 240.255.255.0. This would summarize all
> > > X.10.10.0/24 routes where X is from 160-175. Oh yeah the wildcard for
> this
> > > is 15.0.0.255.
> >
> > wildcard bits will be 15.255.255.255
> > subnet mask 240.0.0.0
> >
> > Guys, it's a basic thing...
> >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Konstantin Kostenko" <konstantin.kostenko@worldnet.att.net>
> > > To: "Justin Menga" <Justin.Menga@computerland.co.nz>
> > > Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 13:03
> > > Subject: Re: Summarization
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Justin Menga wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This would cover from 160.0.0.0 thru to 175.255.255.255
> > > > >
> > > > > You could also use 160.0.0.0 11.255.255.255 - this would summarize
> > > 160.x.x.x
> > > >
> > > > This mask is invalid, if I not mistaken. You can not use it.
> > > > 7.255.255.255 is ok, but not appropriate here.
> > > > 15.255.255.255 is more suitable.
> > > >
> > > > > -> 163.x.x.x and 170.x.x.x -> 173.x.x.x.........
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Derek Buelna [mailto:dameon@aracnet.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 7:13 PM
> > > > > To: 'Marc Russell'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > > Subject: Summarization
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was trying to figure out how to summarize 160.10.10.1/24,
> > > 161.10.10.1/24
> > > > > and 170.10.10.1/24 into one route.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I use the prefix 160.0.0.0 and mask it with 15.255.255.255, I
was
> > > > > thinking that it would care about the first 4 bits and not care
> about
> > > the
> > > > > rest. Would that cover 160.0.0.0 through 175.254.254.254?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > -Derek
> > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:27 GMT-3