I really appreciate the fast answers I got from all of you..
After researching a lot deeper(should of done this before posting, dah?), I
remembered that I had seen good examples of summerization
in one of my books. Guess what? Caslow has (page 306) several good examples.
What I reaslized I was doing was that I forgot about "contiguous subnets"
and was
using the "common one bit" rather than the "common bit". so:
192.168.16.0/24 .0001 0000
192.168.17.0/24 .0001 0001
the "common bit is the "0" at the /23 position
The way I see it I was advertising a lot of subnets and that would of
confused the routing tables.
"Black holes" also comes to mind.
Thanks again
Daniel
""Daniel"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
8u48dj$e70$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:8u48dj$e70$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
>
> 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]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
