You are not summarizing, but it does make sure that if routes were added in the future, they would be included in the ACL. I think your solution is fine.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Meraz, Richard <[email protected]>wrote: > In this task, we are told that “R1 should prefer routes to BB3s > loopbacks with an odd 4th octet via Cat1 and with an even octet via Cat2.” > > > > The routes are from 192.168.3.15 through 192.168.3.34 > > R1#sir rip | in 192.168.3. > > 192.168.3.0/32 is subnetted, 21 subnets > > R 192.168.3.34 [120/4] via 143.43.102.36, 00:00:11, FastEthernet0/1 > > R 192.168.3.33 [120/4] via 143.43.101.35, 00:00:26, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 192.168.3.32 [120/4] via 143.43.102.36, 00:00:11, FastEthernet0/1 > > R 192.168.3.15 [120/4] via 143.43.101.35, 00:00:26, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 192.168.3.14 [120/4] via 143.43.102.36, 00:00:11, FastEthernet0/1 > > R 192.168.3.27 [120/4] via 143.43.101.35, 00:00:26, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 192.168.3.26 [120/4] via 143.43.102.36, 00:00:11, FastEthernet0/1 > > R 192.168.3.25 [120/4] via 143.43.101.35, 00:00:26, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 192.168.3.24 [120/4] via 143.43.102.36, 00:00:11, FastEthernet0/1 > > R 192.168.3.31 [120/4] via 143.43.101.35, 00:00:26, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 192.168.3.30 [120/4] via 143.43.102.36, 00:00:11, FastEthernet0/1 > > R 192.168.3.29 [120/4] via 143.43.101.35, 00:00:26, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 192.168.3.28 [120/4] via 143.43.102.36, 00:00:11, FastEthernet0/1 > > R 192.168.3.19 [120/4] via 143.43.101.35, 00:00:27, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 192.168.3.18 [120/4] via 143.43.102.36, 00:00:12, FastEthernet0/1 > > R 192.168.3.17 [120/4] via 143.43.101.35, 00:00:27, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 192.168.3.16 [120/4] via 143.43.102.36, 00:00:12, FastEthernet0/1 > > R 192.168.3.23 [120/4] via 143.43.101.35, 00:00:27, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 192.168.3.22 [120/4] via 143.43.102.36, 00:00:12, FastEthernet0/1 > > R 192.168.3.21 [120/4] via 143.43.101.35, 00:00:27, FastEthernet0/0 > > R 192.168.3.20 [120/4] via 143.43.102.36, 00:00:12, FastEthernet0/1 > > > > I used the following ACL: > > access-list 1 remark odd nets > > access-list 1 permit 192.168.3.15 > > access-list 1 permit 192.168.3.17 0.0.0.14 > > access-list 1 permit 192.168.3.33 > > > > access-list 2 remark even nets > > access-list 2 permit 192.168.3.16 0.0.0.14 > > access-list 2 permit 192.168.3.32 0.0.0.2 > > > > The PG used the following: > > access-list 41 permit 192.168.3.1 0.0.0.62 > > access-list 42 permt 192.168.3.0 0.0.0.62 > > > > Wouldn’t the PG solution be over-summarizing and therefore considered > wrong, or am I missing something? > > > > Thanks, > > Rich > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > -- Bryan Bartik CCIE #23707 (R&S), CCNP Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc. URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
