RE: Question for Brian McGahan and others

From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Wed Dec 21 2005 - 23:08:18 GMT-3


IMHO, while mathematically the XOR works perfectly fine it's generally a way
to make things appear much more complicated than they really are (or at
least have to be).

0 in mask means the bit must stay the same.
1 in mask means you don't care the value (e.g. there are some things you're
trying to match where it's a 1 and some where it's a 0)

Looking your columns there, the only entries you have variance are in the
3rd column (32-bit position) and the 6th colum (4-bit position). So if you
stick 1's in your mask (for "don't care") then you'll have a mask of 36.

An additional check you can do is to look at the number of "1" values in
your mask and take 2^x (where x = # of 1's). That will tell you how many
matches your mask will make. So in this case, the 1 in 32-bit and 1 in
4-bit positions makes two "1" bits in the mask. 2^2 = 4. There are 4
things you're trying to match anyway, so it's all cool.

Remember, no more, no less. If you find a fancy mask that let's in the
stuff you're looking for plus 16,000 of its closest friends why not save
yourself the headache and do "permit ip any any"? :)

HTH,

Scott

PS. I'm into conserving brain cells... Blew too many of them in college!

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
nenad pudar
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:57 PM
To: bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Question for Brian McGahan and others

Hi Brian
I have the question regarding your paper on Computing Access-List and
Wildcard Pairs

There you have

 00000000
00000100
00100000
00100100
_________
XOR
00100100=36****

I cannot get this trying in any way (for third column)

1) (((0 XOR 0) XOR 1) XOR 1)= ((0 XOR 1) XOR 1)= 1 XOR 1 =0

2) (0 XOR 0) XOR (1 XOR 1) = 0 XOR 0 = 0

I am doing something wrong or there is some other trick here ?

thanks
nenad



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 09 2006 - 07:07:51 GMT-3