From: Elias Chari (elias.chari@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 17 2006 - 04:56:06 ART
Good point Scott...-)
On 7/17/06, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
>
> Those aren't subnets. Numerically and specifically, those would be other
> Class A Networks below 197.0.0.0/8.
>
> I see we're all having different interpretations of what is meant here,
> which, if nothing else, is an excellent illustration of needing to ask the
> proctor what is going on!
>
> Assume nothing! :)
>
>
> Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE
> #153, CISSP, et al.
> CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
> smorris@ipexpert.com
> http://www.ipexpert.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Victor Cappuccio [mailto:cvictor@protokolgroup.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 3:25 PM
> To: 'Scott Morris'; 'Stavros Filargyropoulos'; masterdt@yahoo.com
> Cc: 'Cisco certification'
> Subject: RE: All Subnet below.
>
>
> Hi Scott, sorry maybe I misinterpret the question here But for me subnet
> below 197.0.0.0/8 are 196.0.0.0/8, 195,194,193,...1 Is the following
> Prefix-list meat that requirement?
>
> ip prefix-list X seq 1 deny 198.0.0.0/8
> ip prefix-list X seq 5 deny 199.0.0.0/8
> ip prefix-list X seq 15 deny 200.0.0.0/5 ge 6 le 8 ip prefix-list X seq 16
> deny 208.0.0.0/4 ge 5 le 8 ip prefix-list X seq 100 permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32
>
>
> Thanks
> Victor.-
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] En nombre de
> Scott
> Morris Enviado el: Domingo, 16 de Julio de 2006 02:52 p.m.
> Para: 'Stavros Filargyropoulos'; masterdt@yahoo.com
> CC: 'Cisco certification'
> Asunto: RE: All Subnet below.
>
> 197.0.0.0/8 ge 9 ?
>
> That'll give /9 /10 /11 ... /32
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Stavros Filargyropoulos
> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:57 AM
> To: masterdt@yahoo.com
> Cc: Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: All Subnet below.
>
> Hi,
> Thanks for the feedback
>
> What if we change the prefix to 197.
> Receive all Subnets prefix below 197.0.0.0/8
>
> tia
> *Stav.
>
> On 7/14/06, David Timmons <masterdt@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm,
> >
> > I would vote for 0.0.0.0/0 le 7. Not sure if can include 0.0.0.0 as a
> > subnet less then 128; but, it is a prefix below 128.0.0.0.
> >
> > dt
> >
> >
> > --- Stavros Filargyropoulos <f.stavros@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > How this is configured?
> > > Receive all Subnets prefix below 128.0.0.0/8
> > >
> > > ip prefix-list BELOW permit 128.0.0.0/1 le 8 ?
> > > or
> > > ip prefix-list BELOW permit 128.0.0.0/8 le 32
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > >
> > > tia
> > > *Stav.
> > >
> > >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:47 ART