It seems I got the problem wrong, Sorry
>From: Gary Stainburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Edward Dekkers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [OT] Subnets and Classes >Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:14:23 +0000 > >**Disclaimer - all self-tought** > >Simple answer, you should have been fine having a server on 192.168.0.1/16 >and a client on 192.168.1.1/16. (/16 is another way of writing 255.255.0.0) > >When sending an IP packet, the sender compares it's IP and netmask with the >IP and netmask of the receiver, and if the results match then it tries to >talk direct. If they don't match then it uses it's routing tables to find >out >who to go through, and repeats the same process. > >Comparing IP/masks is a simple logic AND operation. >192.168.0.1 && 255.255.0.0 = 192.168.0.0 >192.168.1.1 && 255.255.0.0 = 192.168.0.0 = match and should talk fine > >Using a class 'C' mask would give >192.168.0.1 && 255.255.255.0 = 192.168.0.0 >192.168.1.1 && 255.255.255.0 = 192.168.1.0 = no-match needs routing > >There is no *magic* about class 'A' 'B' or 'C' netmasks, other than they >split at byte-bounderies ( an typically that they have defined IP address >ranges). There is nothing wrong with using the 192.168. Class B range as >multiple class 'C'. Here we use the class 'A' private range 10. as multiple >class 'B' subnets, one per physical site to aid routing and reduce the >broadcasts that travel down the WAN lines. > >The netmask is purely a way of describing the number of bits - starting at >the left - that signify how much of the IP address is network and how much >is >node. > >128.0.0.0 = /1 = 10000000.00000000.00000000.00000000 >255.0.0.0 = /8 = 11111111.00000000.00000000.00000000 (Class A mask) >255.255.0.0 = /16 = 11111111.11111111.00000000.00000000 (Class B mask) > >Hope this helps > >Gary > >On Wednesday 20 February 2002 9:41 am, Edward Dekkers wrote: > > Just something that's always evaded my comprehension. > > > > I always use the 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 range for internal >networks. > > Usually the first 9 reserved for servers (.1-.10) and the rest clients. > > From all the documentation I've read this is a Class B network (16 bit), > > and to use it I should netmask 255.255.0.0. > > > > I was at a customer's the other day who uses the 192.168.1.x range. I >put a > > pre-prepared Linux box (RH7.2 if it matters) down there, with my usual > > 192.168.0.1 ip set-up, but the clients just would not connect to it. Not > > even ping it. The client's netmask WAS set to 255.255.0.0, so my >question > > is this: > > > > Can a client at let's say 192.168.1.x with netmask 255.255.0.0 connect >to a > > server at 192.168.0.1 with netmask 255.255.0.0? > > > > I've never pondered this before because as I said, I normally use the > > 192.168.0 range only, but in this case, I had to change the server to > > 192.168.1 range to make it work, when, from what I understand, I >shouldn't > > have had to. In the end it's all good and works, but why not with the > > 192.168.0 range? I realise it's a different sub-net, but the mask should > > take care of that no? > > > > Can anyone please kindly refer me somewhere that explains in plain >English > > what I'm misunderstanding? > > > > TIA > >-- >Gary Stainburn > >This email does not contain private or confidential material as it >may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown >and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000 > > > >_______________________________________________ >Redhat-list mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
