From: Toh Soon, Lim (tohsoon28@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 01 2007 - 00:01:12 ART
Hi,
You are right. After looking at the IP address again, I realize it belongs
to subnet 172.16.70.2/31. The other end would have IP address of
172.16.70.3/31, like you said.
Sorry about that :)
Thank you.
B.Rgds,
Lim TS
On 8/1/07, Con Spathas <con@spathas.net> wrote:
>
> The example implies to me that the remote end would have the IP of
> 172.16.70.3/31.
>
> Personally my take on it is unless the task said something like 'use the
> least possible IP addresses' or something like that I'd stick with the
> X.X.X.0/30, but I'd probably clarify with a Proctor tbh.
>
> Besides I'm a lab virgin so I'd probably wait for a veteran to respond on
> their take on it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Toh
> Soon, Lim
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2007 02:17
> To: Antonio Soares
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: 31-bit Prefixes on IPv4 Point-to-Point Links
>
> 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/ios122/122new
> > ft/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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:09 ART