ouch! Please do not attempt this at home. Heck, please do not attempt
this anywhere! :-)
The binary mask for last octet would be 1010. If you assume the use
of subnet zero, your host address go from 1 to 31, then skip to 64-94.
The next subnet in binary is 0010 so the network address
>I know that there was an earlier posting and a very good explanation on
>this. So, kindly bear with me.
>
>I am trying to figure out the subnets (and hosts) for this address:
>
>192.10.3.0 with subnet mask 255.255.255.148.
That is not a valid subnet mask. Subnet mask octets can only be:
Ah, this is true. For some reason that didn't even occur to me when I
answered the question. Now, if you were to invert everything and use
these as wildcard masks, would that work? I seem to remember that we
had this discussion about discontiguous wildcard masks.
Regardless, even if disconti
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
John Neiberger
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Discontiguous networks
ouch! Please do not attempt this at home. Heck, please do not attempt
this anywhere! :-)
The b
==
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
John Neiberger
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Discontiguous networks
ouch! Please do not attempt this at home. Heck, plea
ED]
Subject: RE: Discontiguous networks
Oops! I knew I should have learned how to add at some point in my life!
:-)
I'm glad you caught that. The calculations I made were bad enough as
it was with two mask bits. I'm not going to do it again with three!
Thanks,
John
__
Doesn't the internet support only support high order bit subnetting
Don
- Original Message -
From: "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: Discontiguous
head spin and kept me awake. So, this is the reason why I asked
the list.
Until this time, it keeps me thinking.
Arthur
>From: "Bob Vance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Bob Vance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CISCO_GroupStudy List \(E-mail\)"
Phil,
Without seeing your config, the first thing that comes to mind
with your RIP experiment is
do you have "no ip classless" on all your RIP routers?
Before using "no auto-summary" with RIP,
check the notes on your IOS version on CCO.
Ver.12.2 specially has features that are new, you'd be
amazed
This looks like a summary issue to me. You should see a RIP advertisement
for 172.16.1.0, not 0.0. Of note, the classless and classful behavior are
not entirely related to whether or not an update includes the prefix
length. Make sure you have ip classless enabled and I would try turning
of
>First of all, thanks to all those who responded.
Just to clarify, you are talking about discontiguous subnet masks
here, which is not the same as discontiguous networks. A
discontiguous network exists when pieces of the same major network
(i.e., from a classful standpoint) are separated by
11 matches
Mail list logo
