not quite john.. using your example, a correct example would be something like: 191.72.0.0 /24 (0 = 00000000) 191.72.1.0 /24 191.72.2.0 /24 191.72.3.0 /24 :: :: all combinations /24 networks :: 191.72.221.0 /24 191.72.222.0 /24 191.72.223.0 /24 (223 = 00011111)
you can than summarise the above to 192.72.0.0 /19 this of course does not have to be /24 networks.. but its probably easier to see it as a /24 example. you could of course have combinations of /20 to /32 networks that are contiguous within 191.72.0.0 to 191.72.223.0 that enable you to summarise as a /19. remember to be able to summarise you require all your networks to be "contiguous". hth, mark. >-----Original Message----- >From: Symon Thurlow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Saturday, 28 September 2002 18:03 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: SuperNetting [7:54403] > > >Are each of these a class c subnet? > >-----Original Message----- >From: JohnZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 28 September 2002 04:01 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: SuperNetting [7:54403] > > >Can someone correct if I am wrong here >191.72.1.0 >191.72.2.0 >191.72.4.0 >191.72.12.0 >191.72.21.0 > > >Am I correct in supernetting this to 191.72.0.0 /19 >Report misconduct >and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54415&t=54403 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
