From owner-freebsd-isp  Fri Dec  1  8: 9:29 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [158.36.41.162])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 594E437B400
	for <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri,  1 Dec 2000 08:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 62272 invoked by uid 1001); 1 Dec 2000 16:09:22 +0000 (GMT)
To: sommers@sfo.com
Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Danger Ports
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 Dec 2000 08:05:38 -0800"
References: <5.0.0.25.2.20001201075130.085f1460@pop.sfo.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 17:09:22 +0100
Message-ID: <62270.975686962@verdi.nethelp.no>
Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

>  >> > > 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

You're not yet fully caffeinated. 

172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 matches 176.16.0.0 - 176.31.255.255

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no


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