Steve you BAD boy - where have you been? I still read your CCIE Lab prep advice, and it is posted on my web site as well ( www.chuckslongroad.info ) for all the good it does me ;->
""Steve Dispensa"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Barring intentional obfusication, why would anyone actually use that > > > wildcard mask in an access list instead of a longer more readable > > > alternative? > > > > CL: since the publication of RFC 1812, the so called "whacky" wildcard > masks > > are not supported. In other words, for a router to be RFC1812 compliant, it > > should not permit you to enter masks that do not consist of cintiguous 1's > > and 0's/ > > Nothing in the rfc would prohibit using funny wildcard masks in an ACL. The > point of the contiguous-netmask restriction is to allow cidr to work. Slash > notation (e.g. /24) wouldn't make much sense if some of those 24 bits were > zeros. > > One might use an oddball wildcard mask for effeciency - the router wouldn't > have CL: I should have said subnet masks. seems to me, though, that Cisco has restricted wildcard masks in some places as well. > to match as many acl lines. Then again, it would only really matter on old > routers, > and it's operational suicide anyway since nobody will be able to work on > it. It > might also simplify configs in some places, but (IMHO) at a prohibitive cost > in > operational simplicity. > > You can contrive more cases (acls for debug ip packet, servers are all even > numbers, whatever...), but i don't think it ever makes sense to actually use > this. > > -sd Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58713&t=58644 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
