See comments below. At 11:19 PM 4/7/02, Kent Browning wrote: >Thanks a lot Priscilla. This is what I was looking for. > >I suppose my part 2 to the previous question would make more sense if I used >live IPs like Scenario 3 > >Scenario 3 >========== > >---int0-(R1)-int1 --------int0-(R2)-int1 --- > >Router 1 >Int 0: 192.168.1.1 >Int 1: 200.100.2.1 > >Router 2 >Int 0: 200.100.2.2 >Int 1: 192.168.1.1
Yes, that sounds reasonably real-world. The 200.100.2.0 network is an ISP perhaps. I assume that you know that you are using private addresses and are not worried about both companies using 192.168.1.1 on their interfaces that face their private networks. You would need NAT for this to work. >So basically every router in the world would need to create a subnet? Routers connect subnets. On a point-to-point WAN link that connects two companies, it could be a very small subnet. Some people even use 255.255.255.254 for the subnet mask (although some people claim this is illegal and insist on 255.255.255.252). >I >suppose a company is on the same subnet as the ISP, A company uses address space from its ISP (or private addressing). >then the ISP is on the >same subnet as their teir 1 ISP then all Uses address space from their tier 1 ISP. >the teir 1 ISPs are connected - >between each AS using BGP. Is this right? Sounds right to me. Hopefully we haven't oversimplified so much as to introduce errors. That happens sometimes. Howard Berkowitz wrote a Routing Principles paper for http://www.certificationzone.com that might help you. Also, be sure to read the classics like books by Comer, Perlman, Stevens. Priscilla ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=40838&t=40766 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
