At 4:47 PM -0500 4/19/02, DAN DORTON wrote: >When I say your own I mean... > >Give them a major net 135.50.0.0/16, or something like that. > >Then say R2 tokenring needs to be a /28. > >R3 to R5 P2P connection needs to have no more than two host addresses. > >So on & so forth. > >Make them work a bit to figure it out. > >This was vital to my understanding of subnettting/VLSM/CIDR. > >I thought I really knew all this stuff well until I hit the rack. > >Then I realized after 8 months that now I can crank it out without >even thinking about it & how little I really did know. > >Also as far as time is concerned. > >I can address & get layer 2 operational on a 10 router lab in less >than an hour. frame/atm/switching/ the works. > >Helps pound all the meaningless stuff that you might overlook into >your head so far that you can never forget it. > >Of course this is just my opinion.
And a good one, because you are opening up a whole area of discussion on addressing models for study. My practice is generally to use lots of /24 and smaller, except when doing BGP models that call for multilevel aggregation. My rationale for using /24, and often smaller, is to force people out of classful thinking. I do have a couple of variants, one of which is like yours -- a single /16, and another that has two or three /16 to force some discontiguous networks. What I hear you saying is that having one large network number allows you to focus on learning the hierarchical aspects of VLSM/CIDR. The only problem I have with doing that generally is that you won't have problems with auto-summary and discontiguous networks. Thanks. Good stuff. Howard Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42027&t=42027 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
