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
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