01-20-2010 06:28 AM - edited 03-06-2019 09:22 AM
Hello's
I would like to request some help in summarizaing and wildcard masks.
I have the following subnets that i'd like to summarize and then use the summary address in an Access list. Is this possible?
Here are the ranges:
172.22.96.0/19
172.22.128.0/19
172.22.160.0/19
thanks
Inc.
Solved! Go to Solution.
01-20-2010 06:48 AM
How much summerization are you planning?
You can summerized them into a single /16
172.22.0.0 255.255.0.0 (reverse mask for ACL is 0.0.255.255)
or one /19 and one /18
172.22.96.0 255.224.0.0 (reverse mask for ACL is 0.31.255.255)
172.22.128.0 255.192.0.0 (reverse mask for ACL is 0.63.255.255)
Regards,
jerry
01-20-2010 06:48 AM
How much summerization are you planning?
You can summerized them into a single /16
172.22.0.0 255.255.0.0 (reverse mask for ACL is 0.0.255.255)
or one /19 and one /18
172.22.96.0 255.224.0.0 (reverse mask for ACL is 0.31.255.255)
172.22.128.0 255.192.0.0 (reverse mask for ACL is 0.63.255.255)
Regards,
jerry
01-20-2010 09:00 AM
Jerry is correct in that you can summarise them with 2 entries -
172.22.96.0 255.224.0.0 (reverse mask for ACL is 0.31.255.255)
172.22.128.0 255.192.0.0 (reverse mask for ACL is 0.63.255.255)
note though that there is a typo - reverse masks should be 0.0.31.255 and 0.0.63.255
Jon
01-20-2010 10:40 AM
I agree with Jon and use the following:
172.22.96.0 255.224.0.0 (reverse mask for ACL is 0.31.255.255)
172.22.128.0 255.192.0.0 (reverse mask for ACL is 0.63.255.255)
Regards,
Sal
01-20-2010 07:04 AM
If I have worked this out correctly then you could do it with a wildcard of 0.0.224.255.
This will allow x.x.96.x, x.x.128.x and x.x.160.x
However, it also allows x.x.0.x, x.x.32.x, x.x.64.x, x.x.192.x and x.x.224.x , which you may not want.
HTH
Pete
PS - Any corrections welcome :-)
01-20-2010 12:19 PM
I'm a little confused from the responses. Perhaps its the typo mentioned.
One of the responses given was 172.22.96.0 255.224.0.0 ...... Was this meant to be 172.22.96.0 255.255.224.0 with a reverse of 0.0.31.255?
The second response given was 172.22.128.0 255.192.0.0 ....... Was this meant to be 172.22.128.0 255.255.192.0 with a reverse mask of 0.0.63.255?
thanks again for your time.
Inc.
01-20-2010 12:24 PM
Incognito_54 wrote:
I'm a little confused from the responses. Perhaps its the typo mentioned.
One of the responses given was 172.22.96.0 255.224.0.0 ...... Was this meant to be 172.22.96.0 255.255.224.0 with a reverse of 0.0.31.255?
The second response given was 172.22.128.0 255.192.0.0 ....... Was this meant to be 172.22.128.0 255.255.192.0 with a reverse mask of 0.0.63.255?
thanks again for your time.
Inc.
Yes it was meant to be -
172.22.96.0 255.255.224.0 - reverse mask 0.0.31.255
172.22.128.0 255.255.192.0 - reverse mask 0.0.63.255
Jerry just made a typo which is very unusual for him as he is normally spot on.
Jon
01-20-2010 01:06 PM
Guys,
Thanks so much for your speedy responses. Much much appreciated.
Inc.
01-20-2010 01:49 PM
Thank Jon for correcting my typo.
Regards,
jerry
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: