Re: SuperNetting [7:54403]

2002-09-28 Thread JohnZ
.J. Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Saturday, 28 September 2002 21:53 > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: SuperNetting [7:54403] > > > > > >> 191.72.223.0 /24 (223 = 0001) > > > >Whoa! 223 does not equal 0001. 223 equals 11011

RE: SuperNetting [7:54403]

2002-09-28 Thread Vicuna, Mark
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Saturday, 28 September 2002 21:53 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: SuperNetting [7:54403] > > >> 191.72.223.0 /24 (223 = 0001) > >Whoa! 223 does not equal 0001. 223 equals 1101. > >JohnZ was correct in his original post, th

Re: SuperNetting [7:54403]

2002-09-28 Thread B.J. Wilson
> 191.72.223.0 /24 (223 = 0001) Whoa! 223 does not equal 0001. 223 equals 1101. JohnZ was correct in his original post, that his list of subnets can be summarized 191.72.0.0/19, and Chuck's addendum (that he'll also be summarizing additional subnets other than the ones he mentioned

RE: SuperNetting [7:54403]

2002-09-28 Thread Vicuna, Mark
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] > > >

RE: SuperNetting [7:54403]

2002-09-28 Thread Symon Thurlow
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

Re: SuperNetting [7:54403]

2002-09-27 Thread JohnZ
Thanks guys, this answers my question. Chuck I heard you are writing an article on CertZone about 3550. Is that correct if so I look forward to reading it. it's very timely. ""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > -- > > www.chuckslongroad.info > lik

Re: SuperNetting [7:54403]

2002-09-27 Thread Chuck's Long Road
-- www.chuckslongroad.info like my web site? take the survey! ""JohnZ"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Can someone correct if I am wrong here > 191.72.1.0 x.x.0001.0 > 191.72.2.0 x.x.0010.0 > 191.72.4.0 x.x.0100.0 > 191.72.12.0 x.x.1100.

RE: SuperNetting [7:54403]

2002-09-27 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Short answer: Yes you are correct. Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of JohnZ Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SuperNetting [7:54403] Can someone correct if I am wrong here 191.72.1.0 191.72.2.0

Re: SuperNetting [7:54403]

2002-09-27 Thread Robert Edmonds
The configuration you posted will result in a network that looks like the information below. SubnetMask Subnet Size Host Range Broadcast 191.72.0.0 255.255.224.0 8190 191.72.0.1 to 191.72.31.254 191.72.31.255 ""JohnZ"" wrote i

SuperNetting [7:54403]

2002-09-27 Thread JohnZ
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 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54403&t=54403 -- FAQ, list arch