Re: route summarization question [7:19970]
cat's outta da bag now. but i'm sure your name will be there (Technical Editor, Chuck Larrieu, CCIE 82**) on the front of every text. ;-) -e- - Original Message - From: "Chuck Larrieu" To: Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:11 AM Subject: RE: route summarization question [7:19970] > dammit, Leigh Anne, now EVERYONE will know who to blame for any technical > errors they catch! ;-> > > -Original Message- > From: Leigh Anne Chisholm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 10:53 AM > To: Chuck Larrieu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The New Guy > Subject: RE: route summarization question [7:19970] > > > To determine whether the question you have is right or wrong, take > 172.21.134.0 and apply the mask 255.255.248.0. What range of addresses does > this mask give you? > > 172.21.128.0 through 172.21.135.255. Now does that represent the range of > IP addresses you've been asked to summarize? I think not. > > Let's try your answer. Take 172.21.136.0 and apply the mask 255.255.248.0. > What range of addresses does that mask give you? > > 172.21.136.0 through 172.21.143.255. > > Does it fit the criteria for the question? Does it represent 172.21.136.0 > and 172.21.143.0? > > Chuck's comments about the "lazy no good subcontractor" is kind of funny, > because he's been an absolutely awesome technical editor for Sybex's new > CCNP exam series... > > (-: > > -- Leigh Anne > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Chuck Larrieu > > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:24 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: route summarization question [7:19970] > > > > > > Cisco wrong? Perish the thought!!! ;-> > > > > seeing as 134 is 1110, and is in no way relevant here, I would suggest > > that the lazy no good subcontractor that Cisco hired to write / > > proof / tech > > review / whatever is wrong. > > > > welcome to the world of study materials. > > > > best wishes > > > > Chuck > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > The New Guy > > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 9:19 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: route summarisation question [7:19970] > > > > > > A buddy and I are currently preparing for the BSCN exam. > > One of the review questions involving route summarization is as follows: > > > > 172.21.136.0/24 and 172.21.143.0/24 can be summarized as: ?? > > > > We both came to the same conclusion: > > > > ^ > > 172.21.136.0 -> 10101100.00010101.10001000. > > 172.21.143.0 -> 10101100.00010101.1000. > > ^ > > > > Both addresses have the first 20 bits in common so the summarized address > > would > > be: > > 172.21.136.0/21 > > > > However, Cisco says the answer is 172.21.134.0/21 > > Can someone please confirm we summarized this route right. I > > think the test > > from Cisco is wrong, typo or something > > > > Dyland _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=20014&t=19970 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: route summarization question [7:19970]
To determine whether the question you have is right or wrong, take 172.21.134.0 and apply the mask 255.255.248.0. What range of addresses does this mask give you? 172.21.128.0 through 172.21.135.255. Now does that represent the range of IP addresses you've been asked to summarize? I think not. Let's try your answer. Take 172.21.136.0 and apply the mask 255.255.248.0. What range of addresses does that mask give you? 172.21.136.0 through 172.21.143.255. Does it fit the criteria for the question? Does it represent 172.21.136.0 and 172.21.143.0? Chuck's comments about the "lazy no good subcontractor" is kind of funny, because he's been an absolutely awesome technical editor for Sybex's new CCNP exam series... (-: -- Leigh Anne > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Chuck Larrieu > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: route summarization question [7:19970] > > > Cisco wrong? Perish the thought!!! ;-> > > seeing as 134 is 1110, and is in no way relevant here, I would suggest > that the lazy no good subcontractor that Cisco hired to write / > proof / tech > review / whatever is wrong. > > welcome to the world of study materials. > > best wishes > > Chuck > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > The New Guy > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 9:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: route summarisation question [7:19970] > > > A buddy and I are currently preparing for the BSCN exam. > One of the review questions involving route summarization is as follows: > > 172.21.136.0/24 and 172.21.143.0/24 can be summarized as: ?? > > We both came to the same conclusion: > > ^ > 172.21.136.0 -> 10101100.00010101.10001000. > 172.21.143.0 -> 10101100.00010101.1000. > ^ > > Both addresses have the first 20 bits in common so the summarized address > would > be: > 172.21.136.0/21 > > However, Cisco says the answer is 172.21.134.0/21 > Can someone please confirm we summarized this route right. I > think the test > from Cisco is wrong, typo or something > > Dyland Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=19982&t=19970 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: route summarization question [7:19970]
dammit, Leigh Anne, now EVERYONE will know who to blame for any technical errors they catch! ;-> -Original Message- From: Leigh Anne Chisholm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 10:53 AM To: Chuck Larrieu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The New Guy Subject: RE: route summarization question [7:19970] To determine whether the question you have is right or wrong, take 172.21.134.0 and apply the mask 255.255.248.0. What range of addresses does this mask give you? 172.21.128.0 through 172.21.135.255. Now does that represent the range of IP addresses you've been asked to summarize? I think not. Let's try your answer. Take 172.21.136.0 and apply the mask 255.255.248.0. What range of addresses does that mask give you? 172.21.136.0 through 172.21.143.255. Does it fit the criteria for the question? Does it represent 172.21.136.0 and 172.21.143.0? Chuck's comments about the "lazy no good subcontractor" is kind of funny, because he's been an absolutely awesome technical editor for Sybex's new CCNP exam series... (-: -- Leigh Anne > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Chuck Larrieu > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: route summarization question [7:19970] > > > Cisco wrong? Perish the thought!!! ;-> > > seeing as 134 is 1110, and is in no way relevant here, I would suggest > that the lazy no good subcontractor that Cisco hired to write / > proof / tech > review / whatever is wrong. > > welcome to the world of study materials. > > best wishes > > Chuck > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > The New Guy > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 9:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: route summarisation question [7:19970] > > > A buddy and I are currently preparing for the BSCN exam. > One of the review questions involving route summarization is as follows: > > 172.21.136.0/24 and 172.21.143.0/24 can be summarized as: ?? > > We both came to the same conclusion: > > ^ > 172.21.136.0 -> 10101100.00010101.10001000. > 172.21.143.0 -> 10101100.00010101.1000. > ^ > > Both addresses have the first 20 bits in common so the summarized address > would > be: > 172.21.136.0/21 > > However, Cisco says the answer is 172.21.134.0/21 > Can someone please confirm we summarized this route right. I > think the test > from Cisco is wrong, typo or something > > Dyland Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=19984&t=19970 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: route summarization question [7:19970]
Cisco wrong? Perish the thought!!! ;-> seeing as 134 is 1110, and is in no way relevant here, I would suggest that the lazy no good subcontractor that Cisco hired to write / proof / tech review / whatever is wrong. welcome to the world of study materials. best wishes Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of The New Guy Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 9:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: route summarisation question [7:19970] A buddy and I are currently preparing for the BSCN exam. One of the review questions involving route summarization is as follows: 172.21.136.0/24 and 172.21.143.0/24 can be summarized as: ?? We both came to the same conclusion: ^ 172.21.136.0 -> 10101100.00010101.10001000. 172.21.143.0 -> 10101100.00010101.1000. ^ Both addresses have the first 20 bits in common so the summarized address would be: 172.21.136.0/21 However, Cisco says the answer is 172.21.134.0/21 Can someone please confirm we summarized this route right. I think the test from Cisco is wrong, typo or something Dyland Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=19980&t=19970 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
