A /20 will summarize 16, 17, and a whole bunch more, all the way up through
31. This would create havoc on the network, because there would be overlap
with the division that is advertising subnets 24 through 31.
If you look at your binary, you can see that the bits that remain identical
for both 16 and 17 are the 0001 000, with the last bit changing. Each of
those bits that remains the same will be included in the summary mask that
you assign.
The other subdivision in Doyle's example, 192.168.18 and 19 would be written
out this way:
0001 0010 and 0001 0011 or 192.168.18.0/23 as well. Again, the bits that
remain the same 0001001 will be covered my the summary mask, with the last
bit the only one that changes.
HTH
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Daniel
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 10:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Summerization (Doyle's book)
I search the archives, looked at the errata for Routing tcp/ip and did not
find a correction for the following scenario.
Chapt 8 P 373 figure 8.34
Wouldn't the summerization for
192.168.16.0/24 .0001 0000
192.168.17.0/24 .0001 0001
be 192.168.16.0 /20? The example states 192.168.16.0/23 as the answer
Why /23 ? Is this a typo or is there something I am missing? All the other
summerization were right on.
Thanks,
Daniel
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
