On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 03:50:24PM +0000, Ishtiaque Mahbub wrote:
> Thanks for your answer but this triggered a few more questions(!)
>
> My summary of thoughts are like this:
>
> 1. If there had not been the choice no. 2, my arithmatic is correct?
Yes.
> 2. The question that I had just asked, there was a similar question on the
> book, which proposed almost the same network summarasation:
> 172.16.12.0/24, 172.16.13.0/24, 172.16.14.0/24:
> and the summarasation of 172.16.12.0/22 was the correct answer......(choice
> was a) 172.16.0.0/24 b)172.16.14.0/24 c)172.16.12.0/22 d)172.16.14.0/22)
Yes, c) is more suitable since it covers the range
172.16.12.0/24
172.16.13.0/24
172.16.14.0/24
o.k. and one extra:
172.16.15.0/24
So all plus one extra.
But that's better than
a) 172.16.0.0/24 which doesn't summarize any of the nets
b) 172.16.14.0/24, which only covers one
d) only covers one as well ....
So b is for me the best compromize....
> 3. if the purpose of the route summarasation is to reduce routing table
> entry so why not a single entry rather than two?
Test questions are sometimes silly and want to stress/confuse you ;-)
Sometimes you have to find the best "tradeoff" ;-)
--
Andreas Klemm http://people.FreeBSD.ORG/~andreas
http://www.freebsd.org/~fsmp/SMP/SMP.html
powered by Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD
New APSFILTER 542 and songs from our band - http://people.freebsd.org/~andreas
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
