From: Toh Soon, Lim (tohsoon28@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 31 2007 - 22:17:15 ART
Hi Antonio,
Yup, seen this technote before. If you notice the IP address 172.16.70.2
255.255.255.254, I think it's incorrect. It's outside the range.
Back to my original post, given the question would you configure /30 or /31?
Or clarify with the proctor? :)
Thank you.
B.Rgds,
Lim TS
On 8/1/07, Antonio Soares <amsoares@netcabo.pt> wrote:
>
> Check this document:
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122
> t/122t2/ft31addr.htm
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Antonio Soares
> CCIE #18473, CCNP, CCIP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Toh
> Soon, Lim
> Sent: quarta-feira, 1 de Agosto de 2007 1:33
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: 31-bit Prefixes on IPv4 Point-to-Point Links
>
> Hi All,
>
> If the question is phrased as follows:
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Configure the Serial link between R7 and R8 with PPP encapsulation and
> place
> on the 150.50.102.0 subnet.
> This configuration should support only R7 and R8 as viable hosts on this
> subnet.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> Should I configure the link as /30 or /31? If I go with 31-bit prefix, the
> IP addresses would be 150.50.102.0/31 and 150.50.102.1/31.
>
> By the way, are 31-bit prefixes commonly used in the real-world to address
> point-to-point links? I have learned of its advantages e.g. conserving IP
> addresses, elimination of directed broadcast address, etc. Are there any
> disadvantages?
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> B.Rgds,
> Lim TS
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 18 2007 - 08:17:42 ART