Question from Lammie CCNA 7th Edition

EverlifeEverlife Member Posts: 253 ■■■□□□□□□□
Hi everyone,

I'm working on Chapter 5 (VLSMs, Summarization, and Troubleshooting TCP/IP) and am a bit confused on one of the lab exercises questions.

The lab asks for the following:

Determine the summary address and mask used that will summarize the subnets

#7
172.16.1.0 through 172.16.7.0

I had thought the summary address would be 172.16.0.0 with a mask of 255.255.248.0 (/21). However, the answer given is summary address of 172.16.1.0 with a mask of 255.255.248.0. I checked the errata and didn't see a correction made to the answer.

Is it because of the possibility that the 0.0 range is all ready being used on another part of the network? If so, it is somewhat confusing because the question doesn't mention that and a previous question in the lab with a network of 192.168.1.0/24 through 192.168.12.0/24 has an answer of summary address 192.168.0.0/20.

Any help would be appreciated!

Any help is appreciated!

Comments

  • capitanuionutcapitanuionut Member Posts: 55 ■■□□□□□□□□
    Everlife wrote: »
    Hi everyone,

    I'm working on Chapter 5 (VLSMs, Summarization, and Troubleshooting TCP/IP) and am a bit confused on one of the lab exercises questions.

    The lab asks for the following:

    Determine the summary address and mask used that will summarize the subnets

    #7
    172.16.1.0 through 172.16.7.0

    I had thought the summary address would be 172.16.0.0 with a mask of 255.255.248.0 (/21). However, the answer given is summary address of 172.16.1.0 with a mask of 255.255.248.0. I checked the errata and didn't see a correction made to the answer.

    Is it because of the possibility that the 0.0 range is all ready being used on another part of the network? If so, it is somewhat confusing because the question doesn't mention that and a previous question in the lab with a network of 192.168.1.0/24 through 192.168.12.0/24 has an answer of summary address 192.168.0.0/20.

    Any help would be appreciated!

    Any help is appreciated!

    I think is indeed a mistake cause if we follow the method for obtaining the summarized route :

    172.16.00000001.00000000
    172.16.00000111.00000000
    172.16.0.0 /21

    This is definitely the result...
  • jdgtrplyrjdgtrplyr Member Posts: 1 ■□□□□□□□□□
    Looks like a typo. Happens a lot when Lammle gets to talking about subnetting.
  • EverlifeEverlife Member Posts: 253 ■■■□□□□□□□
Sign In or Register to comment.