Here is a little wit and wisdom. There isn't enough RFCs or books in the world to help you pass the CCIE lab. We will be waiting for your third "I failed the CCIE lab AGAIN" e-mail.
BTW... Your New Year's resolution should be to consider minding your own business. ""Chuck Larrieu"" wrote: > Speaking only for myself, I look forward to your wit and wisdom when > providing us wannabees with the knowledge we so desperately seek. > > While you're at it, can you provide us with a list of the RFC's you have > written? And the books? I'd like to check them out. Anything to improve my > own understanding of how things work. > > Best wishes, > > Chuck > > > ""Cisco Cisco"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Howard, > > If you actually worked on a router in the real world > > rather than just tell people you do, you would know > > that Cisco has supported access-list remarks for some > > time now. > > > > Oh I'm sure you're going to reply to this e-mail with > > some stupid story like, "This reminds me when I was > > talking to a developer at Apple about Mac OS 1.0 but I > > had never really worked on an Apple" or some worthless > > story like that. > > > > Also do us all a favor and quit cross posting from > > other mailing list. We don't want to see your replies > > to the juniper and ccie mailing list posts. Cross > > posting can be dangerous when you're on some of the > > list the you are on.... wink, wink ;-) > > > > > > ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote: > > > > > >Yes, it does make simple tasks a little more > > complicated. However, using > > > >inverse masking can make complex tasks much easier. > > > > > > > >Take this issue. Say you are asked to filter access > > to all odd 192.168.x.0 > > > >/24 routes. > > > > > > > > > > > >Your method. > > > > > > > >192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 > > > >192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0 > > > >192.168.5.0 255.255.255.0 > > > >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > > > > > > > I see your approach, Marc, and I have even > > encountered real-world > > > situations where such filtering might be > > appropriate. It happened > > > when an enterprise wanted to "leave room for > > expansion", but didn't > > > understand summarization. They assigned > > odd-numbered subnets to > > > different sites/areas, thinking the even ones would > > be for future use. > > > > > > My approach, incidentally, is to figure out the > > number of potential > > > areas or sites, then divide by a power of 2, at > > least 4, to be > > > summarization-friendly. > > > > > > There's no question that your approach takes fewer > > lines of code. > > > Personally, I wouldn't use it except in a huge > > network where there > > > was no other way to fit that many lines into NVRAM. > > > > > > My motivation for not doing so is maintainability. > > The more complex > > > the mask, the more difficult it will be for some > > subsequent > > > administrator to figure out what was being done. I > > might be more > > > open to the idea if Cisco saved comments with the > > configuration, but, > > > of course, it doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > > http://greetings.yahoo.com > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30597&t=30597 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
