From: MANU mohan (cciemanu@rediffmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 23 2005 - 05:33:54 GMT-3
Hi,
Both your prefix-lists will satisfy your given 4 routes.But the
problem is that you are also matching additional routes with this.For the
first prefix-list "ip prefix-list aggregate permit 172.16.0.0/22 ge 23", you
will also be matching any routes between masks 23 & 32,provided the first 22
bits match 172.16.0.0, like
172.16.0.0/25
172.16.1.0/25
172.16.0.0/26 ..so
on
With the second list "ip prefix-list aggregate permit 172.16.0.0/22 le
24", you will be matching any routes whose first 22 bits match 172.16.0.0
with masks lower than 24 (24 inclusive),like
172.16.0.0/23
172.16.1.0/23...so on
So you are matching additional routes.I think the
prefix-list belo will be a better solution.
"ip prefix-list aggregate permit
172.16.0.0/22 ge 23 le 24".
Thanks,
Manu
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 Nguyen Huu
Hoa wrote :
>Hi group
>
>I have some prefix-list:
>
>ip prefix-list aggregate
permit 172.16.0.0/24
>
>ip prefix-list aggregate permit 172.16.1.0/24
>
>ip
prefix-list aggregate permit 172.16.2.0/24
>
>ip prefix-list aggregate permit
172.16.3.0/24
>
>which prefix-list below achieve the same result :
>
>ip
prefix-list aggregate permit 172.16.0.0/22 ge 23
>
>or
>
>ip prefix-list
aggregate permit 172.16.0.0/22 le 24
>
>Why ?
>
>Tks
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:56:50 GMT-3