Absolutely nothing wrong with putting a gateway at the high-end of things.
It's all up to feasibility. Most networks I come across are 192.168.1.0/24
networks with the lower addresses already in use. The next most logical
address to use to me is starting from the last and working backwards. It's
a very common practice in originally non-networked LANs. Often I'll also
have sites that do have one router to their remote sites at something such
as 192.186.1.1/24, and again the rest of the lower addresses are in use by
server, printers, hosts, etc. Again, the best addresses to start using IMHO
is the top end working down (instead of right in the middle where some
semi-technical user is likely to step over it). The main thing to me is
standardizing things, so if I can place all my routers at .254 instead of .3
on one subnet, .5 on another, .8 on a third, I'd rather have them all .254.
Just my two cents. Hmm, speaking of which, my router at home is
192.168.45.254. Of course, my old WinGate gateway was at 192.168.45.1, and
we had hosts starting at .2, so again, I went to .254 for my new router.
--
Jason Roysdon, CCNP/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+
List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/
Cisco resources: http://r2cisco.artoo.net/
"Craig Columbus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hmm...depends on your meaning of correct. The router is the last host IP
> in the network (10.1.244.0-10.1.245.255). While most people put the
router
> as the first IP (in this case 10.1.244.1), there's technically nothing to
> prevent someone from making it the last host...or the middle host....or
any
> host in between. Technically feasible? Yep. Poor choice? In my
opinion,
> yes.
>
> Craig
>
> At 08:18 PM 1/15/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >It may be legal but still not correct.
> >
> >One thing that seems a bit odd though, the gateway is generally a
> >smaller number then the node.
> >I've never seen it larger but hey I've seen stranger things.
> >Natasha
> >just a CCNA lol
> >
> >Eric Fairfield wrote:
> > >
> > > Looks legal to me.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eric Fairfield
> > > CCIE #6413
> > >
> > > ""Dennis Ighomereho"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > hello everyone,
> > > > someone has just given me an IP address to use which i think the
> > subnet is
> > > > wrong or know is wrong.can someone just confirm this.
> > > >
> > > > Ip address:10.1.245.253
> > > > mask: 255.255.254.0
> > > > gateway 10.1.245.254
> >
> >Natasha Flazynski
> >http://www.ciscobot.com
> >My Cisco information site.
> >http://www.botbuilders.com
> >Artificial Intelligence and Linux development
> >------------------------------------------------
> >A bus station is where a bus stops.
> >A train station is where a train stops.
> >On my desk, I have a work station...
> >
> >_________________________________
> >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
