Re: supernetting question

2000-10-27 Thread ROUTHIER, YVES
Peter, Maybe you will need to explane me this one if you do a summarisation with this mask you will include some network who wasn't there in the question what happen if those networks are on a different interface I still keep my word to say , you need consecutive networks Yves

RE: supernetting question

2000-10-27 Thread Brant Stevens
To: Peter Slow Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: supernetting question Peter, Maybe you will need to explane me this one if you do a summarisation with this mask you will include some network who wasn't there in the question what happen if those networks are on a different interface

Re: supernetting question

2000-10-26 Thread ROUTHIER, YVES
first , to be able to do supersubneting you need to have consecutive network "A.Strobel" wrote: What is the correct supernet for the followings: 172.29.10.0 255.255.255.128 172.29.16.64 255.255.255.192 172.29.0.0 255.255.255.224 is my calculation of 172.29.0.0/19 correct?

Re: supernetting question

2000-10-26 Thread Brian W.
Absolutely, any supernet you did here would include a bunch of non listed space.. Brian On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, ROUTHIER, YVES wrote: first , to be able to do supersubneting you need to have consecutive network "A.Strobel" wrote: What is the correct supernet for the

RE: supernetting question

2000-10-26 Thread Anton Khan
: supernetting question first , to be able to do supersubneting you need to have consecutive network "A.Strobel" wrote: What is the correct supernet for the followings: 172.29.10.0 255.255.255.128 172.29.16.64 255.255.255.192 172.29.0.0 255.255.255.224 is my calculation of

Re: Re: supernetting question

2000-10-26 Thread Peter Slow
no not really. what you will want to do is configure null interfaces on those routers tho...( i think) 1010 -- 10 0001 -- 16 -- 0 this is the third octet, and all the bits are the same up to 19. so yes, your aggregation is correct. (i think) - Peter (i think, therefore i am not