RE: wildcard mask question

From: blodwick (blodwick@columbus.rr.com)
Date: Sun Nov 27 2005 - 19:37:17 GMT-3


I think its definitely worth while to examine the differences of each.
 
These two statements will do two very different things.
 
access-list 1 permit 192.168.1.0 0.0.6.0
 
access-list 2 permit 192.168.1.0 0.0.6.255
 
If you were filtering routes and received the following routes:
  192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0
  192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0
  192.168.1.128 255.255.255.128
  192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0
  192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0
  192.168.3.0 255.255.255.240
  192.168.3.32 255.255.255.240
  192.168.5.64 255.255.255.192
  192.168.5.128 255.255.255.128
 
access-list 1 would permit:
  192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0
  192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0
  192.168.3.0 255.255.255.240
 
access-list 2 would permit:
  192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0
  192.168.1.128 255.255.255.128
  192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0
  192.168.3.0 255.255.255.240
  192.168.3.32 255.255.255.240
  192.168.5.64 255.255.255.192
  192.168.5.128 255.255.255.128
 
~ Brian L
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Hash Aminu [mailto:hashng@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 5:02 PM
To: blodwick
Cc: Pierre-Alex; Montiean; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: wildcard mask question
 
look guys , lets think as the router does as scott morris use to say <Be
the Router>. the router think in networks and this man is trying to
match the networks clearly shown as /24s, IMHO either solution will
fulfill the requirement.
HTH
Hash!
 

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date:
11/25/2005

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 11/25/2005



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:08 GMT-3