>>>> access-list 181 deny ip 192.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255
> access-list 182 permit ip 199.2.98.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255
the latter permits something which the former does not deny. i.e. noop.
randy
permits/denys what? (a retorical query)
the point being that there is no practical difference btween
199.2.98.0/24
and 192.0.0.0/24
or 128.0.0.0/24
or 191.255.255.0/24
these prefixes (and delegation points) are valid or potentially valid
in the routing system whereas
192.0.2.0/24
and 172.16.0.0/16
and 192.168.0.0/24
and 10.0.0.0/8
are not.
--bill (off to re-read RFC 1519 and RFC 1918 just to make sure)
and 192.0.0.0/24
or 128.0.0.0/24
or 191.255.255.0/24
these prefixes (and delegation points) are valid or potentially valid
in the routing system
and someday, with enough marketing thrust, pigs could fly. with as many
large isps filering these prefixes as there seem to be, and for good
historic reason, my advice would be to bet on the pigs. rosenantes is
getting nackered.
and once again, what the heck is a 'delegation point' in bgp/routing?
rfc/document reference, please?
randy
permits/denys what? (a retorical query)
the point being that there is no practical difference btween
199.2.98.0/24
and 192.0.0.0/24
or 128.0.0.0/24
or 191.255.255.0/24
these prefixes (and delegation points) are valid or potentially valid
in the routing system whereas
192.0.2.0/24
and 172.16.0.0/16
and 192.168.0.0/24
and 10.0.0.0/8
are not.
--bill (off to re-read RFC 1519 and RFC 1918 just to make sure)
Bill,
You remind me of something I've been hunting for, which I think is relevant
to a lot of operationally related educational examples. Are there prefixes
that are likely to stay unassigned for the moderate to long term, other
than the RFC1918 group?
If I'm showing how to use a NAT with private address space on one side and
registered space on the other, I'd like to use some "safe" prefixes on the
public side that are NOT from RFC1918. Is there some block likely to stay
with IANA? Or possibly some space assigned to the military and likely to
stay in a secure network?
I really feel for the people who have 202.222.5.0, 131.108.0.0, and the
other prefixes used in Cisco educational material for many years! How many
clueless people have picked those as their network numbers?
Howard
Egads. This is just like the old pre-configured sunos IP numbers. That was
part of the reason for RFC1597 anyway.
Here's what I do: use another RFC1918 net for demonstration (try a class A
number so it looks different) and pretend its routed. It doesn't
(shouldn't) matter to the NAT. If you aren't connected to the net, it
doesn't matter anyway. If you are connected to the net, then use the
actual assigned network number, and have a real demonstration.
--Dean