On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 08:39:55AM +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
> 
> So for your case you need two bits -- i.e: 255.255.255.252
> Now calculate the 2 correct host numbers as an exercise (and
> reply to the group, so others will benefit as well...)
> 


  A possible allocation of IPs with a 255.255.255.252 netmask might be:

    network address:    192.168.0.8.
        1st host:           192.168.0.9.
        2nd host:           192.168.0.10.
        broadcast address:  192.168.0.11.

Another similar example:

    network address:    192.168.25.252.
        1st host:           192.168.25.253.
        2nd host:           192.168.25.254.
        broadcast address:  192.168.25.255.



I still don't get something. Quoting section 7 of the IP Sub-Networking
Mini-Howto:

\bgein{quotation}

    For the sake of this example, let us assume that you have decided to
    subnetwork you C class IP network number 192.168.1.0 into 4 subnets
    (each of 62 usable interface/host IP numbers). However, two of these
    subnets are being combined into a larger single network, giving three
    physical networks.
    These are :-

    ______________________________________________________________________
    Network         Broadcast       Netmask                 Hosts
    192.168.1.0     192.168.1.63    255.255.255.192         62
    192.168.1.64    192.168.1.127   255.255.255.192         62
    192.168.1.128   192.168.1.255   255.255.255.128         124 (see note)
    ______________________________________________________________________



    Note: the reason the last network has only 124 usable network
    addresses (not 126 as would be expected from the network mask) is that
    it is really a 'super net' of two subnetworks. Hosts on the other two
    networks will interpret 192.168.1.192 as the network address of the
    'non-existent' subnetwork. Similarly, they will interpret
    192.168.1.191 as the broadcast address of the 'non-existent'
    subnetwork.


    So, if you use 192.168.1.191 or 192 as host addresses on the third
    network, then machines on the two smaller networks will not be able to
    communicate with them.


\begin{interruptRequest}

  How does the 2 smaller networks know that 192.168.1.191 and 192 were
initially a broadcast and network addresses? Would they treat any one of
192.168.*.19[12] in the same way?

\end{interruptRequest}


    This illustrates an important point with subnetworks - the usable
    addresses are determined by the SMALLEST subnetwork in that address
    space.


    7.1.  The routing tables

    Let us assume that a computer running Linux is acting as a router for
    this network. It will have three network interfaces to the local LANs
    and possibly a fourth interface to the Internet (which would be its
    default route.


    Let us assume that the Linux computer uses the lowest available IP
    address in each subnetwork on its interface to that network. It would
    configure its network interfaces as


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Interface       IP Address      Netmask
    eth0            192.168.1.1     255.255.255.192
    eth1            192.168.1.65    255.255.255.192
    eth2            192.168.1.129   255.255.255.128
    ______________________________________________________________________



    The routing it would establish would be


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Iface
    192.168.1.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.192 eth0
    192.168.1.64    0.0.0.0         255.255.255.192 eth1
    192.168.1.128   0.0.0.0         255.255.255.128 eth2
    ______________________________________________________________________



    On each of the subnetworks, the hosts would be configured with their
    own IP number and net mask (appropriate for the particular network).
    Each host would declare the Linux PC as its gateway/router, specifying
    the Linux PCs IP address for its interface on to that particular
    network.



    Robert Hart Melbourne, Australia March 1997.

\end{quotation}



  I will repeat the question in case you haven't noticed that I have 
\begin{interruptRequest} in the middle:

  How does the 2 smaller networks know that 192.168.1.191 and 192 were
initially a broadcast and network addresses? Would they treat any one of
192.168.*.19[12] in the same way?

-- 

    Shaul Karl, [EMAIL PROTECTED] e t

=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to