From: Dave (cisco_instructor@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jan 16 2001 - 17:01:36 GMT-3
I agree, and my test is thursday. However I would be more inclined to do it
the way the CD shows, right or wrong, at least then you can argue it with
the proctor. Then you are not necessarily wrong, but the doc's are !!
DAve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fallon, Bill" <Bill.Fallon@getronics.com>
To: "Barry J. Bocaner" <barry@truedge.com>; "Hardin Les - SMTP"
<hardinl@bah.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: DLSW MAC ADDR Filtering and Masks
> Barry,
>
> Please Do test it and let me know because to no surprise there is a
conflict
> on CCO and My test is in 30 days.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry J. Bocaner [mailto:barry@truedge.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 1:00 PM
> To: Hardin Les - SMTP
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: DLSW MAC ADDR Filtering and Masks
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Barry J. Bocaner wrote:
> > mask mask
> > (Optional) MAC address mask in hexadecimal h.h.h. The "f" value
> > represents the "don't care" bit and the "0" value represents the
> > "care" bit. The mask indicates which bits in the MAC address are
relevant.
> >
>
> I'd just like to add that I think it is FREAKY that the router defaults to
> a mask which would allow ALL mac addresses, but I beleive this is the way
> it really works. I'm going to test this out after work today in my lab
> and I'll let you know how it works.
>
> Bottom line: BE CAREFUL!!
>
> --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Barry J. Bocaner
> Sr. Network Engineer TruEdge Technologies
> <barry@truedge.com> 703-573-9884 x 103
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:31 GMT-3