Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 01 Dec 2000 08:05:38 -0800
From:      William Sommers <sommers@sfo.com>
To:        freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Danger Ports
Message-ID:  <5.0.0.25.2.20001201075130.085f1460@pop.sfo.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012010027360.34557-100000@systemadmin.shelt onbbs.com>
References:  <20001130221631.E99903@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:28 AM 12/1/00 -0600, Butch Evans wrote:

 >> > > access-list 110 deny   ip 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 any log
 >> > > access-list 110 deny   ip 172.31.0.0 0.0.255.255 any log
 >>
 >> > access-list 110 deny   ip any 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 log
 >> > access-list 110 deny   ip any 172.31.0.0 0.0.255.255 log
 >>
 >> Is it me? Isn't the second network in each a subset of the first?
 >>
 > Now that I re-read your question, I see what you are saying...You are
 > correct.

Um, unless I'm not yet fully caffeinated:

172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 matches 176.16.0.0 - 176.30.255.255
172.31.0.0 0.0.255.255  matches 176.31.0.0 - 176.31.255.255

No overlap at all.


  -wfs



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.0.25.2.20001201075130.085f1460>