From: Lab Candidate (labccie@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 - 19:31:44 GMT-3
I'd say access-list 1 is right, it can do what he is asking for.
--- Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
> F. None of the above...
>
> Because of bit boundaries though, you can't summarize quite so nicely.
>
> access-list 6 permit 192.168.123.0 0.0.0.255
> access-list 6 permit 192.168.124.0 0.0.3.255
>
> That will cover 123, 124, 125, 126 and 127. The implicit deny will catch
> 128 and 129....
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Sam.MicroGate@usa.telekom.de
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:02 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: ACL question
>
>
> Suppose that the backbone is advertising the following routes:
> 192.168.123.0/24
> 192.168.124.0/24
> 192.168.125.0/24
> 192.168.126.0/24
> 192.168.127.0/24
> 192.168.128.0/24
> 192.168.129.0/24
> I need to filter .128 and .129 and pass every thing else. which of the
> following access list is correct
> access-list 1 permit 192.168.123.0 0.0.7.255 or
> access-list 2 permit 192.168.124.0 0.0.7.255 or
> access-list 3 permit 192.168.125.0 0.0.7.255 or
> access-list 4 permit 192.168.126.0 0.0.7.255 or
> access-list 5 permit 192.168.127.0 0.0.7.255
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:22 GMT-3