From: Johnny Dedon (johnny.dedon@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jun 13 2001 - 14:01:47 GMT-3
Except that it would not deny 10.197.0.0
Johnny Dedon
Senior Staff Consultant
Exodus Professional Services
johnny.dedon@exodus.net
www.exodus.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin, Chris" <chris@pacinter.net>
To: "Lee Waskevich" <ciscokid@blinkx.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Accesslist question
> Actually, corect me if im wrong but i think it would be:
>
> access-list 10 deny 10.133.1.0 0.63.0.255
>
> otherwise your statement is true.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lee Waskevich" <ciscokid@blinkx.net>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:52 AM
> Subject: Accesslist question
>
>
> > Question regarding accesslists see example:
> >
> > Deny the following with least number of lines:
> >
> > 10.133.1.0
> > 10.197.1.0
> > so i use
> > access-list 10 deny 10.133.1.0 0.64.0.255
> > is that right?
> >
> > because the second octet is exactly 64 apart so in binary
> >
> > 133--10000101
> >
> > 197--11000101
> >
> >
> > that leaves the 2nd bit as the only "don't care" bit. I think it is but
> > cannot find too much documentation on a scenario such as this
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Lee
> > **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:23 GMT-3