02-23-2010 11:42 AM - edited 03-04-2019 07:35 AM
Hi,
I am trying to advertise this into BGP. I will try to summarize this and if possible advertise it via one network statement.
In order to visualize the summarized network, I converted the third octet of networks above to binary:
9.176.210.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.211.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.212.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.213.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.214.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.215.0 255.255.255.128
9.176.216.0 255.255.252.0
9.176.217.0 255.255.255.0
So converting the third octet to binary:
11010010 = 210
11010011 = 211
11010100 = 212
11010101 = 213
11010110 = 214
11010111 = 215
11011000 = 216
11011001 = 217
Then I see that all these entries have up to the 4th bit in common (from left to right). Then if I follow that rationale, the summary route should be:
9.176.208.0/20
However, that is wrong because as you can see 9.176.208.0 and 9.176.209.0 should not be included on this.
What am I missing? What is the right approach to summarize such networks then? My methodology always worked before so I don't get what is wrong.
Solved! Go to Solution.
02-23-2010 12:02 PM
news2010a wrote:
9.176.210.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.211.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.212.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.213.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.214.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.215.0 255.255.255.128
9.176.216.0 255.255.252.0
9.176.217.0 255.255.255.0So converting the third octet to binary:
11010010 = 210
11010011 = 211
11010100 = 212
11010101 = 213
11010110 = 214
11010111 = 215
11011000 = 216
11011001 = 217Then I see that all these entries have up to the 4th bit in common (from left to right). Then if I follow that rationale, the summary route should be:
9.176.208.0/20
However, that is wrong because as you can see 9.176.208.0 and 9.176.209.0 should not be included on this.What am I missing? What is the right approach to summarize such networks then? My methodology always worked before so I don't get what is wrong.
Marlon
Some network ranges are not summarisable in one statement and the above is true for you.
Also note that 9.176.208.0/20 covers
9.176.208.0 -> 9.176.23.255 so it also includes a whole lot more at the other end. You can't summarise the above with one statement without including a lot more /24s.
Jon
02-23-2010 12:02 PM
news2010a wrote:
9.176.210.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.211.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.212.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.213.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.214.0 255.255.255.0
9.176.215.0 255.255.255.128
9.176.216.0 255.255.252.0
9.176.217.0 255.255.255.0So converting the third octet to binary:
11010010 = 210
11010011 = 211
11010100 = 212
11010101 = 213
11010110 = 214
11010111 = 215
11011000 = 216
11011001 = 217Then I see that all these entries have up to the 4th bit in common (from left to right). Then if I follow that rationale, the summary route should be:
9.176.208.0/20
However, that is wrong because as you can see 9.176.208.0 and 9.176.209.0 should not be included on this.What am I missing? What is the right approach to summarize such networks then? My methodology always worked before so I don't get what is wrong.
Marlon
Some network ranges are not summarisable in one statement and the above is true for you.
Also note that 9.176.208.0/20 covers
9.176.208.0 -> 9.176.23.255 so it also includes a whole lot more at the other end. You can't summarise the above with one statement without including a lot more /24s.
Jon
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide