From: vidhya natarajan (vidhyanatarajan@rediffmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 06 2005 - 16:53:29 GMT-3
Scott/Carl,
Thanks for the reply.. I think the mask shud be .18?
>2
00000010
>10 00001010
>18 00010010
>26 00011010
>Diff 00011000 =
.24 Mask <---- would be a .18 mask isnt it?
So the final one would be
200.0.1.2 0.0.2.18 ?
Looking forward for your reply..
Thanks,
Vidhya
On
Thu, 06 Oct 2005 Carl Willias wrote :
>Scott you nailed it. I missed the
third octet.
>
>CW
>
>----- Original Message ----
> From: Scott Morris
<swm@emanon.com>
>To: Carl Willias <mandingo2073@yahoo.com>; Lee Donald
<Lee.Donald@t-systems.co.uk>; Leigh Harrison <ccileigh@gmail.com>;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 10:15:20 AM
>Subject:
RE: Double Check access-list
>
>
>200.0.1.2
>200.0.3.2
>200.0.3.10
>200.0.1.18
>200.0.3.26
>200.0.1.10
>200.0.3.18
>200.0.1.26
>
>Third Octet:
>
>1
00000001
>3 00000011
>Diff 00000010 = .2 Mask
>
>Fourth Octet:
>
>2
00000010
>10 00001010
>18 00010010
>26 00011010
>Diff 00011000 =
.24 Mask
>
>Remember that the router sees these things simply as strings of 32
bits.
>It's only our little brains that need the dotted-decimal octet
>representations. :)
>
>200.0.1.2 0.0.2.24 mask will give a total of three
bits of difference. 2^3
>yields 8 matches, and we have 8 lines listed.
>
>Scott
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
[mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Carl
>Willias
>Sent: Thursday,
October 06, 2005 11:02 AM
>To: Lee Donald; Leigh Harrison;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: Double Check access-list
>
>I think the
answer is
>
>200.0.3.2 0.0.0.24
>200.0.1.2 0.0.0.24
>
>CW
>
>----- Original
Message ----
> From: Lee Donald <Lee.Donald@t-systems.co.uk>
>To: Leigh
Harrison <ccileigh@gmail.com>; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Sent: Thursday, October
06, 2005 9:05:05 AM
>Subject: RE: Double Check access-list
>
>
>Leigh,
>
>How's it going? Your access-list does work however it also includes other
>hosts with your list that your not suppose to deny, for example 200.0.2.16
>would also be denied using your list but the question does not ask for that.
>
>Regards
>
>Lee.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> From: Leigh Harrison
[mailto:ccileigh@gmail.com]
>Sent: 06 October 2005 14:49
>To:
ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Double Check access-list
>
>Hey there,
>
>Could someone double check this for me? I think I've been staring at the
>screen too long....
>
> From IEWB lab vol 1 17 Q.10
>
>Use the minumum lines
necessary to deny these hosts:-
>
>200.0.1.2
>200.0.3.2
>200.0.3.10
>200.0.1.18
>200.0.3.26
>200.0.1.10
>200.0.3.18
>200.0.1.26
>
>I worked it out
like this:-
>
>128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 #
>0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
>0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 3
>
>0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
>0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 10
>0
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 18
>0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 26
>
> From that, in the
third octet, the only bit that cnages is 2 and both
>variables are present.
In the fourth octet, the only bits that change are
>the 16 and 8 bits and all
4 variables are present.
>
>So I came up with :-
>access-list 1 deny 200.0.1.2
0.0.2.24
>access-list 1 permit any
>
>However, the official answer is:-
>access-list 1 deny 200.0.1.2 0.0.2.8
>access-list 1 deny 200.0.1.18 0.0.2.0
>access-list 1 deny 200.0.1.26 0.0.2.0
>access-list 1 permit any
>
>Am I
missing something ?!?
>
>Time for a brew.....
>LH
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>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 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 22:00:49 GMT-3