Hi Joe,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:59:05PM +0000, Joe Zambon wrote:
OK...Where i've written 192.168.x.x what i suppose i shoudl have
written
would have been 192.168.x.y where x is your chosen third octet (which would
not be the same in every network hence the wildcard element) and y are the
host bits. So no. What i meant was a class C network.
Fair enough, then I agree!
<
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1918.html>
With regards to your /21 subnetted network. This fellow has suggested that
he's going to use 192.168.100.0 for his server IP Address....i doubt he has
knowledge of subnetting hence why i simplified down to just /24 networks. I
could have gone all out and started asking how many hosts he requires and
gone into VLSM but I didn't think that appropriate. Would you??
Nope, other than to point out that 192.168.100.0 is indeed not a
valid host address for a /24 as I now realise you were saying.
Also RE: 192.168 being a valid class B network, ok yes point made and
taken
but, private address ranges as dictated by IANA in RFC 1918
<
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1918.html><http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc...
suggest
that you should not be using 192.168.whatever networks as class b private
ranges but instad 172.16. networks. So if i was talking about a class B
private network i wouldn't be using 192.168.x.y would i??
Well there is no such thing as classful addressing anymore so there
is no reason why you couldn't use all of 192.168 as a single /16,
other than that if you needed another you'd have to take it from
172.16/12 or 10/8, which may look a bit messy.
BTW the reason why you don't want to put hosts on .0 or .255 even
when there is no technical reason not to is that no version of
Windows supports talking to such an IP. :)
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB