From: Cisco Net (network.cisco@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 05 2004 - 01:59:39 GMT-3
Thank you guys..
By the way Marc mentioned,
access-list 100 permit 192.160.0.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255
an alternate idea of acl instead of prefix list /24
Is this acl is right or it should be,
access-list 100 permit 192.160.0.0 0.0.0.255 host 255.255.255.0
????
Just making sure..
I guess both are fine...
Cert
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:37:46 +1100 (EST), marc van hoof
<mvh@marcvanhoof.com> wrote:
> ah - ok - i thought that when you said "the /24 applies to both the
> network address and the net mask" that you meant the netmask (as well as
> the network) had 24 fixed bits and 8 variable bits...
>
> as mentioned later in the post, it wasn't long ago that you had masks for
> masks...
>
> misunderstanding - apologies...
>
>
>
> cheers,
> -marc.
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, ccie2be wrote:
>
> > No, those 2 prefix aren't the same.
> >
> > The 1st prefix list means that the 1st 24 bits must equal to 192.168.0 and
> > the net mask is 24 bits long.
> >
> > The 2nd perfix list means that the 1st 24 bits must equal 192.168.0 (same as
> > before) but the le 32 that follows means the net mask can be from 24 bits
> > long to 32 bits long.
> >
> > Don't overlook that le means LESS THAN OR EQUAL.
> >
> > So, the 1st perfix list means 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 ONLY/
> >
> > The 2nd prefix list means the following matches:
> >
> > 192.168.0.0/24
> > 192.168.0.0/25
> > 192.168.0.0/26
> > 192.168.0.0/27
> > 192.168.0.0/28
> > 192.168.0.0/29
> > 192.168.0.0/30
> > 192.168.0.0/31
> > 192.168.0.0/32
> >
> > So, you see there's a big difference.
> >
> > HTH, Tim
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "marc van hoof" <mvh@marcvanhoof.com>
> > To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
> > Cc: "Cisco Net" <network.cisco@gmail.com>; "Group Study"
> > <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 10:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Prefix lists differences ?
> >
> >
> >> so what you're saying is that if you don't specify the ge xx le xx, it
> >> means that you are specifying a minimum mask length ?
> >>
> >> seems odd, but i'll believe it...
> >>
> >> basically that would mean that
> >>
> >> ip prefix-list 10 permit 192.168.0.0/24
> >>
> >> is the same as
> >>
> >> ip prefix-list 10 permit 192.168.0.0/24 le 32
> >>
> >> ??
> >>
> >> on this topic, do people remember the days before prefix-lists, where you
> >> HAD to use extended ip access lists for route filtering, and the
> >> "destination address/mask" of the extended acl referred to the mask of the
> >> route ?
> >>
> >> it was never any fun to see:
> >>
> >> access-list 100 permit 192.160.0.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> -marc.
> >>
> >> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, ccie2be wrote:
> >>
> >>> They're the same.
> >>>
> >>> The slash 24 in the 1st prefix list means the 1st 24 bits of the network
> >>> address must match and the ge 24 le 24 means the net mask must be
> > exactly 24
> >>> bits.
> >>>
> >>> In the 2nd prefix list, when you don't have either ge or le, then the
> > /24
> >>> refers to both the network address and the net mask.
> >>>
> >>> HTH, Tim
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Cisco Net" <network.cisco@gmail.com>
> >>> To: "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 10:20 PM
> >>> Subject: Prefix lists differences ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi
> >>>> Is the meaning of the following 2 Prefix lists are same ?
> >>>> -ip prefix-list ONE permit 100.100.100.0/24 ge 24 le 24
> >>>> -ip prefix-list TEO permit 100.100.100.0/24
> >>>>
> >>>> I thought both are same.. What do you think ?
> >>>> Regds
> >>>> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 06:57:38 GMT-3