Praveen Kallakuri 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!!! :)
Something to do with the network address. But now that I think about
it, I may be confusing it with the rules for creating a custom subnet.
> secondly, how can i split 1.x into different subnets?
>
> --
I'll have to look it up, but it involves using a subnet mask like
255.255.224.0 instead of the usual 255.255.255.0. This way you can have
a subnet with space for only a few machines, instead of the 254 spots
you get with using 192.168.1.x with 255.255.255.0 as the subnet mask.
Tune in tomorrow when I can explain it further... :)
(Ya know, it's about time for a refresher for me, since Level 2 of my
CCNA classes start in 2 weeks...)
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
