How does this seem as a reason for making router/network equipment addresses
the lower addresses.
Subnet is 192.168.16.0/24 with router 192.168.16.1
Subnet needs to expand to 192.168.16.0/23 (So router remains in a sensible
location at lower end as opposed to stuck in the middle of subnet as it
would be at 192.168.16.254)
Similarly:
Subnet is 192.168.16.0/24 with router 192.168.16.1
Subnet needs to shrink to 192.168.16.0/25 or /26 or /27 etc
No matter how far you shrink the subnet, the router remains in the subnet.
If it had been 192.168.16.254 it would have had to change to .126, .62, .30
respectively.
My 2cents/pence/etc
Gareth
""Chuck Larrieu"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
001401c07f67$8b83bec0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:001401c07f67$8b83bec0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> One place I worked placed all their routers at the dot 100 address.
Printers
> were all dot 1 through 10. All other clients were DHCP. Kind of a pain to
> set up DHCP scopes initially, I suppose.
>
> Their security folks did this deliberately, the idea being that since
> everyone numbers their routers as either dot 1 or dot 254, that's where
> hackers ( internal, in this case, because it was al private addressing )
> would be looking. It would be easier for the snoop software to discover
> someone trying to telnet to a couple hundred addresses than it would be to
> discover someone attempting to break into just a couple of addresses.
>
> Well, that's what they said, anyway.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Craig Columbus
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 6:05 PM
> To: Natasha; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: wrong subnet
>
> 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]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
