From: Nick Shah (nshah@connect.com.au)
Date: Wed Oct 09 2002 - 23:40:39 GMT-3
To be pedantic, the closest match would be 192.168.0.0/20.
An argument can be put forth, as to why not have 192.168.0.0/16, since there
are no other more specific subnets of 192.168 major network elsewhere ??
To which the reply can be that if creating 192.168.0.0/16 is going to help
with VLSM/FLSM distribution elsewhere in the network (I am talking in terms
of pure LAB environment) then go ahead and do it (make a /16). If its not
going to help in any redistribution scenario then better stick to the /20
(why, because /16 claims to cover more networks than /20 in the list of
subnets that you have listed)
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)" <JPaglia@NA2.US.ML.com>
To: <craig.tompkins@verizon.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:49 AM
Subject: RE: Summarization of Routes
> Since it 'depends on the actual question and what you're excluded from
> doing', let's nail a scenario down...
>
> ? says: "Some routes will come to your router via rip. Summarize them
before
> they go into the ospf network using the shortest possible mask."
> *this says to me that we are only concerned with these specific RIP
> routes, which are in a different address range than my entire network, so
> affecting my network's routes would kinda be impossible in this scenario.
> Lets say my network is 172.16.0.0, and the 5 routes coming in from RIP
are:
> 192.168.2.0
> 192.168.4.0
> 192.168.6.0
> 192.168.8.0
> 192.168.10.0
>
> Given the 'shortest possible mask' specification, what would YOU put?
>
> John
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Craig Tompkins [SMTP:craig.tompkins@verizon.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:30 PM
> > To: 'Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: Summarization of Routes
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > It all depends on the actual question and what you are excluded from
> > doing.
> > It may be really that you can cut it back to /16 and accomplish this.
> > But can you go even farther back? Also the question may say
> > summarize only the network included, which then means you cant go
> > back that far because you would be summarizing more than is shown.
> > So there is not really an easy answer as it depends on what you are
> > excluded from doing. So make sure you look out for these exclusions.
> > Such as summarize using shortest mask only the network below. Or
> > something that says to specifically exclude a specific net.
> >
> >
> > Craig W. Tompkins
> > Network Engineer
> > Temecula, CA 92592
> > 760.583.6544
> >
> > "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose
> > face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly;
> > who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great
> > enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy
> > cause; who at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who,
> > at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so
> > that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
> > know neither victory nor defeat."
> > - -Theodore Roosevelt, "Citizen in a Republic", April 23, 1910
> >
> >
> > - -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> > Of Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 4:47 PM
> > To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> > Subject: Summarization of Routes
> >
> > 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
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
> >
> > iQA/AwUBPaTYF8BQYrtUgT/NEQLSRgCcC9b8islTjekK4iPUEBNRd/c2FP4AnRKU
> > Dq0JBtscmdN6r5TD6M1a+9Pg
> > =nr2E
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:43 GMT-3