From: Carlos G Mendioroz (tron@huapi.ba.ar)
Date: Tue Oct 19 2004 - 06:49:26 GMT-3
Nico, this is not actually true.
In places where the mask counts (i.e. in routing processes) 145.0.0.0/16
and 145.0.0.0/8 are different things.
In some of those places, you can use extended ACL destination addresses
to denote the masks that you want to permit/deny.
So 145.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 host 255.255.0.0 was kind of right.
I say "kind of" because you will usually not get enything but .0.0 for
the last part of a /16 network, so 145.0.0.0 0.255.0.0 host 255.255.0.0
would be a better fit.
HTH.
Nico van Niekerk wrote:
> 145.x.0.0/16 with x being any number is the same as saying 145.0.0.0/8
> Once you specify 'any' number in second octet with a /16 mask you're
> actually specifying a mask of /8.
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>>Cisco Net
>>Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2004 2:31 PM
>>To: Group Study
>>Subject: Access-list clarification
>>
>>
>>Hi
>>How to write an acl for the following,
>>145.X.0.0 /16 where as second octet can be any number
>>
>>Got confused..
>>
>>145.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 will not match the mask.
>>
>>Is it,
>>
>>145.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 host 255.255.0.0 ???
>>
>>Please clarify....
>>Regards
>>Cert
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>Subscription information may be found at:
>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
-- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 06 2004 - 17:11:49 GMT-3