From: Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell) (JPaglia@NA2.US.ML.com)
Date: Wed Oct 09 2002 - 22:05:53 GMT-3
Point well made. I guess I'm just being paranoid. A product of bad testing
experience.
Thanks for the 'smack back down to earth'.
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Fletcher [SMTP:tim@fletchmail.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:03 PM
> To: Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell); 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: Re: Summarization of Routes
>
> Why not /1, it's the shortest :-) (it works, I just tried it, but /0
> doesn't)
>
> At 07:46 PM 10/9/02 -0400, Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell) wrote:
> >What is the real meaning of the question 'summarize to the shortest
> possible
> >mask'?
> >
> >Example...suppose I am asked to 'summarize the routes received using the
> >SHORTEST POSSIBLE MASK', and these are the routes received:
> >
> >192.168.20.1 /24
> >192.168.50.1 /24
> >192.168.100.1 /24
> >192.168.190.1 /24
> >
> >My knee-jerk reaction was to go with 192.168.0.0 /16, but upon further
> >thought, I could also summarize to a /13 mask and be able to ping all the
> >above 'nets.
> >
> >Do ya think it would be wrong to do this on the test if it comes up, thus
> >setting myself up for disaster? The 'shortest possible mask' stmnt. is
> >really bothering me. Opinions please.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:43 GMT-3