On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 12:09:29 -0500 "Praveen Kallakuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 08:52:57 -0400, David Woyciesjes wrote: > > IIRC, you're not supposed to use a 192.168.0.x subnet. Something > > about the network address part being screwed up. Try using > > 192.168.1.x and 192.168.2.x for your two subnets. Of course, you > > could always split 192.168.1.x into two (or more) different > > subnets too. > > Mind you, the part of my CCNA class that went over this was last > > spring... I can flip through the books and check when I get home > > tonight, if you like. > > thats news to me. why should i not use 0.x? i will look through the > literature myself, but i would appreciate if you could check back and > tell me why. (easy way out!!! :) I guess that a machine with the ip 192.168.0.5 would have the netmask of 255.255.255.0, and a network address of 192.168.0.0. The netmask, when applied to the IP does show that 192.168.0.0 is correct, and should work fine. HOWEVER there is the possibility for confusion, and it looks odd, so thats a good enough reason to avoid 0 ranges :) > secondly, how can i split 1.x into different subnets? Don't bother - just move the 192.168.0.x/24 to 192.168.2.0/24 BTW the answer would be to subnet, to use 0-127 on one side and 128-255 on the other side, with a netmask of 255.255.255.127 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
