On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Daniel wrote:
> 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
/23 is the answer, this doesn't make sense to you though? Here are some
examples
192.168.16.0/28 192.168.16.0 - 192.168.16.15
192.168.16.0/27 192.168.16.0 - 192.168.16.31
192.168.16.0/26 192.168.16.0 - 192.168.16.63
192.168.16.0/25 192.168.16.0 - 192.168.16.127
192.168.16.0/24 192.168.16.0 - 192.168.16.255
192.168.16.0/23 192.168.16.0 - 192.168.17.255
192.168.16.0/22 192.168.16.0 - 192.168.19.255
192.168.16.0/21 192.168.16.0 - 192.168.23.255
192.168.16.0/20 192.168.16.0 - 192.168.31.255
Brian
>
> 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]
>
-----------------------------------------------
Brian Feeny, CCNP, CCDP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator
ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881)
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
