From: Ramanpreet Singh (sikandar.raman@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2008 - 13:07:40 ART
i think you meant 3,4 and 6th? right?
On 3/30/08, Shine Joseph <shinepjoseph@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> No. you can ahave any value from 0 to 255 for the wild cards. I will give
> you a couple of examples.
>
>
>
> The wild card 12 is valid, but would match only the 3rd and 4th bits from
> LSB - from right most.
>
> That is, when you write them in binary, it becomes
>
> 0000 0000 - 0
>
> 0000 0100 - 4
>
> 0000 1000 - 8
>
> 0000 1100 - 12
>
>
>
> So when you use this wild card in an access-list it matches only these 4
> addresses.
>
>
>
> A wild card of 44 means either 0 or 1 on the bit positions 3, 5, 6 or in
> binary
>
>
>
> 0000 0000 - 0
>
> 0000 0100 - 4
>
> 0000 1000 - 8
>
> 0000 1100 - 12
>
> 0010 0000 - 32
>
> 0010 0100 - 36
>
> 0010 1000 - 40
>
> 0010 1100 - 44
>
>
>
> Thus, the wild card of 44 matches the above 8 addresses.
>
>
>
> HTH,
>
> Shine
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Mike Haddad [mailto:mike.haddad@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 11:51 AM
> To: Shine Joseph; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Multicast Grouping
>
>
>
> Hello Shine,
>
> You're right and as long as I understand the valid wildcards are : 1 3 7
> 15 31 63 127 and 255. So using a wild card of 12 is considered invalid?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> > From: shinepjoseph@iprimus.com.au
> > To: mike.haddad@hotmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: Multicast Grouping
> > Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:09:38 +1100
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Write them in binary.
> > 226 - 1110 0010
> > 12 - 0000 1100
> >
> > The possible combinations would be:
> > 1110 0010 - 226
> > 1110 0110 - 230
> > 1110 1010 - 234
> > 1110 1110 - 238
> >
> > So by having a mask of 12 you are are matching only above 4 addresses.
> >
> > HTH,
> > Shine
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Mike
> > Haddad
> > Sent: Sunday, 30 March 2008 5:55 PM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Multicast Grouping
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I still don't understand why the below ACL can't be grouped:
> > interface Loopback0
> > ip pim sparse-dense-mode
> > !
> > ip pim send-rp-announce Loopback0 scope 16 group-list 50
> > !
> > access-list 50 permit 226.0.0.0 1.255.255.255
> > access-list 50 permit 228.0.0.0 3.255.255.255
> > access-list 50 permit 232.0.0.0 3.255.255.255
> > access-list 50 permit 236.0.0.0 1.255.255.255
> > access-list 50 permit 238.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
> >
> >
> > Why can't we group them as:
> > access-list 50 permit 226.0.0.0 12.255.255.255
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification,
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Enter the Hunt & you could win a 2008 Eclipse Spyder! Click here to
> enter!
> > http://g.msn.ca/ca55/213
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Express yourself with free Messenger emoticons. Get them today!
> <http://g.msn.ca/ca55/207>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 07:53:55 ART