Joachim Schipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's usually better to divide into subnets. /24 is the standard, and > plenty big enough for any home LAN. This makes routing tables less > complicated (for instance, the NetGear would need a /32 route entry for > both 1.1 and 1.2, as would 0.4 and 0.19; this would be more elegantly > solved by reserving 192.168.1.0/24 for the whole net behind 0.4 and > 192.168.2.0/24 for the whole net behind 0.19; 192.168.0.0/24 is then the > network that is directly attached to the NetGear).
Sorry to keep at this when the setup is now moved to the simpler format, but its really interesting to me since I'm in the middle of trying to underdstand more about networking and your comments have been very helpfull and readable. In the scheme you lay out above a couple of things puzzle me. 1) NetGear would need a /32 route entry for both 1.1 and 1.2, as would 0.4 and 0.19; I'm not sure what you mean here. can you show a route command that would set that for one of them... like 1.1 2) Reserve the whole net behind [...] on 192.168.1/24 192.168.2/24 respectively. In that setup, how would 192.168.1/24 192.168.2/24 talk to each other. Wouldn't they need a router between the two subnets?
