RE: CCNA 2 and subnets - Yikes

2001-01-23 Thread Jennifer Cribbs
st? Do you have time for one more study guide? I have a good one if you want to look at it. Good Luck!! Jennifer Cribbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Bob Vance [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:28 PM To: CISCO_GroupStudy List (E-mail) Subjec

RE: CCNA 2 and subnets - Yikes

2001-01-23 Thread Bob Vance
70-623-3429   Duluth, GA 30097-1511 = -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gopinath Pulyankote Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 6:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CCNA 2 and subnets For CCNA 2.0 e

Re: CCNA 2 and subnets

2001-01-23 Thread Gopinath Pulyankote
> > > > > -----Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Brian Lodwick > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 1:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: CCNA 2 and subnets > > > Bob, > Howa

Re: CCNA 2 and subnets

2001-01-23 Thread Tom Lisa
At the CCNA level we're still teaching 2^n-2, but we also clarify the difference between the "classroom" and the "real world." Tom Lisa, Instructor, CCNA, CCAI Community College of Southern Nevada Cisco Regional Networking Academy Bob Vance wrote: > Sorry for the lame question, but I gotta kno

RE: CCNA 2 and subnets

2001-01-23 Thread John Chang
subnet's >are strongly discouraged in a classfull environment. > > >>>Brian > > > >From: "Lowell Sharrah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: CCNA 2 a

RE: CCNA 2 and subnets

2001-01-23 Thread Bob Vance
Dr. Fax 770-623-3429   Duluth, GA 30097-1511 = -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brian Lodwick Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 1:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subje

RE: CCNA 2 and subnets

2001-01-23 Thread Brian Lodwick
Using Cisco's website try to find out why the all 1's and all 0's subnet's are strongly discouraged in a classfull environment. >>>Brian >From: "Lowell Sharrah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,

RE: CCNA 2 and subnets

2001-01-23 Thread Lowell Sharrah
found The article is called: Understanding IP addressing: Everything You Ever Wanted To Know by Chuck Semeria. Cisco, Microsoft, and the RFC's seem to dance around the topic. >>>Brian >From: "Bob Vance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Bob Vance" &l

RE: CCNA 2 and subnets

2001-01-23 Thread Brian Lodwick
. >>>Brian >From: "Bob Vance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Bob Vance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CISCO_GroupStudy List \(E-mail\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: CCNA 2 and subnets >Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:24:37 -0

RE: CCNA 2 and subnets

2001-01-23 Thread Bob Vance
Yarrggh! Of course, that's (2^n) (*not* 2^(n-1) ) Maybe there *is* something to that aspartame story ;>) - Tks        | BV    | Sr. Technical Consultant,  SBM, A Gates/Arrow Co. Vox

Re: CCNA 2 and subnets

2001-01-22 Thread J Roysdon
The way I've always read it, with both Microsoft and Cisco texts, is that even though subnet zero is supported by nearly everything these days, it's not recommended as not everything does support it (not that I've ever heard of something not, but perhaps an old UNIX host or something). I think fo