Hey all
Its been 2 weeks since ive check back with the group...(ive been on
holidays =)
I see these questions on "Supernetting"...what is it...im guessing a way
to extend the bit masks on subnets???,.yes or no??
any links or book references will help
tha
What is the correct supernet for the followings:
172.29.10.0 255.255.255.128
172.29.16.64 255.255.255.192
172.29.0.0 255.255.255.224
is my calculation of 172.29.0.0/19 correct?
Thanks,
A. Strobel
Get free email a
Supernetting, CIDR, aggregation - all different names for the beast.
It is the way of representing multiple networks with a single mask.
You already know that you can subnet a class C, breaking it into multiple
/27's or /30's, for example. So you can have 192.168.100.0/27, resulting
those 5 contiguous subnets into
following address: 123.80.0.0/14 (**this is a made-up
number) Now I am done with supernetting. What is the
next to be done?
What should I do with this ip address?
Should I go to physically to these 520 stations one by
one for new tcp/ip setup? I think there should be
]>
> To: Groupstudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 4:20 PM
> Subject: After supernetting!!
>
>
> Hi all
> Let's say there are 5 subnets (Class B/16 subnet mask)
> consisting of approximately 500 DHCP clients and 20
> servers.
> Someone as
first , to be able to do supersubneting you need to have consecutive
network
"A.Strobel" wrote:
>
> What is the correct supernet for the followings:
>
> 172.29.10.0 255.255.255.128
> 172.29.16.64 255.255.255.192
> 172.29.0.0 255.255.255.224
>
> is my calculation of 172.29.0.0/19 cor
Absolutely, any supernet you did here would include a bunch of non listed
space..
Brian
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, ROUTHIER, YVES wrote:
> first , to be able to do supersubneting you need to have consecutive
> network
>
>
>
> "A.Strobel" wrote:
> >
> > What is the correct supernet
t: Re: supernetting question
first , to be able to do supersubneting you need to have consecutive
network
"A.Strobel" wrote:
>
> What is the correct supernet for the followings:
>
> 172.29.10.0 255.255.255.128
> 172.29.16.64 255.255.255.192
> 172.29.0.0 255.255.
Peter,
Maybe you will need to explane me this one
if you do a summarisation with this mask you will include some network
who wasn't there in the question
what happen if those networks are on a different interface
I still keep my word to say , you need consecutive networks
Yves Routhi
To: Peter Slow
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: supernetting question
Peter,
Maybe you will need to explane me this one
if you do a summarisation with this mask you will include some network
who wasn't there in the question
what happen if those networks are on a different inte
the
> instruction from the book on how to supernet, and
> finally summarized those 5 contiguous subnets into
> following address: 123.80.0.0/14 (**this is a made-up
> number) Now I am done with supernetting. What is the
> next to be done?
> What should I do with this ip address?
I think the original poster misunderstands that supernetting is a routing
function and not something you configure on the PC, but then maybe we're
only confusing terms
I have flattened a network before and more planning is required than one
might think.
For only 520 address
oadcasting, has got to be a lot of traffic.
Duck
- Original Message -
From: jeongwoo park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Groupstudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 4:20 PM
Subject: After supernetting!!
Hi all
Let's say there are 5 subnets (Class B/16
ar to be routed (perhaps they are
handled using ARP?) and the performance is very good.
ping response times on both switches and routers is
under 20ms. This is where I believe supernetting could
be a solution to this slowness, because I think
supernetting allows me to put all stations in the same
subne
I thought supernetting was combining several small networks into one big
one, the opposite of subnetting which takes one big network and breaks it
into smaller ones.
Summarizing is a technique where you combine several larger perfixs into one
smaller prefix that includes the larger perfixs and
zeros, we are, depending upon the
context, summarizing, supernetting, aggregating.
If we expand ( move to the right ) the ones, we are subnetting. If we start
with the same network mask, and expand the ones differently for several
different subnets, we are variably subnetting, or using VLSM.
I think
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
--
F
no not really.
what you will want to do is configure null interfaces on those routers tho...( i think)
1010 -- 10
0001 -- 16
-- 0
this is the third octet, and all the bits are the same up to 19.
so yes, your aggregation is correct. (i think)
- Peter (i think, therefore i am not
e
>transfers appear to take a long trip through the
>router with a huge performance penalty (1Mbit/sec).
>when the client and server are on the same subnet the
>packets do NOT appear to be routed (perhaps they are
>handled using ARP?) and the performance is very good.
>ping response
quot;jeongwoo park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Groupstudy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, 08 November, 2000 17:13
Subject: Why not supernetting?
> Hi All,
>
> I am looking for advice on a LAN performance issue. i
> am running primarily NT4 and win2K boxes on a
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why not supernetting?
Outside of anything more "best practice design" specific which others are
and I'm sure will cover, I would look at your 100 meg downlinks (connections
from edge switches to aggregation switches back to 5500 in increasing order
of importance
Your problem seems to be insufficient hardware.
Supernetting five subnets and putting 500 stations on one segement will
cripple your network.
Duck
- Original Message -
From: jeongwoo park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Groupstudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08,
On Behalf Of
Donald B Johnson Jr
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:00 AM
To: jeongwoo park; Groupstudy
Subject: Re: Why not supernetting?
Your problem seems to be insufficient hardware.
Supernetting five subnets and putting 500 stations on one segement will
cripple your
but machines are predictible.
Habeeb
> -Original Message-
> From: Chuck Larrieu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:47 AM
> To: Donald B Johnson Jr; jeongwoo park; Groupstudy
> Subject: RE: Why not supernetting?
>
> Just to be arg
n whatever is between them is a
> bottleneck. Normally a
> Cat5500 shouldn't be that bottleneck especially if
> it's doing the routing
> (with a RSM/MSFC).
>
> Can you elaborate on how traffic is getting from one
> subnet to another?
>
> Kevin Wigle
>
>
I couldn't agree more, a multiport switch connected to the router, then
another switch for each area of worksations is the way I would go.
Bri
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Donald B Johnson Jr wrote:
> Your problem seems to be insufficient hardware.
> Supernetting five
ach area of worksations is the way I would go.
>
> Bri
>
>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Donald B Johnson Jr wrote:
>
>> Your problem seems to be insufficient hardware.
>> Supernetting five subnets and putting 500 stations on one segement will
>> cripple you
Z"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
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
.4.0
x.x.0100.0
> 191.72.12.0
x.x.1100.0
> 191.72.21.0
x.x.00010101.0
>
>
> Am I correct in supernetting this to 191.72.0.0 /19
255.255.1110.0
first three leftmost bits in the third octet are the only ones common to all
the subnets you mention
yes, you have supernetted the
; 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.1100.0
>
> > 191.72.21.0
>
> x.x.00010101.0
> >
> >
> > Am I correct in supernetting this to 191.72.0.0 /19
>
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
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]
>
>
>
> 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
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
.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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why not supernetting?
You guys must be integrators! She has a 5500 already, which although
somewhat dated, should be able to provide enough horsepower to route to 600
users in 5 or 6 subnets surely.
I highly expect her issue is not lack of hardware related. I
OUCH- been there done that
- Original Message -
From: "Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 5:53 AM
Subject: Equipment needs - WAS: Why not supernetting?
> It is, of course, unethical for me to name n
38 matches
Mail list logo
