From: Bob Rech (brech@kc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 09:25:42 GMT-3
Actually couldn't you use a /17 mask 255.255.128.0 to summarize the routes
from 192.168.0.0 through 192.168.191.255
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Seto" <lseto@us.cnlink.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: Summarization of Routes
> Someone will correct me if i'm wrong,
>
> short mask 255.255.255.0 = longer prefix /24
>
> long mask 255.0.0.0 = shorter prefix /8
>
> in your case a /16 is the shortest mask to use.
>
>
>
> Leo Seto
>
>
> -----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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:44 GMT-3