Re: Subnetting/Routing

["Wolf"]

"SEND NO SPAM" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2kr46d.dgu.ln@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Wolf wrote:
>
> NITPICKING over netmask number's adds nothing to solve the original
> problem. Which was the Whole point of my original post. Just use a
> different netmask. Bickering about which number is a waste of time.
>
The one good thing about not only being involved in networking as long as I
have but having taken advanced classes in the subject matter is you know the
theory and understand how things work. The one thing I hated the most were
the subnet problems.  Two tests a week 3-4 subnet problems per test for a
year-plus the labs!   It was drummed into me.  When I took the BSCI course
it was even worse when you have to build a network of a bunch of routers all
running differing protocols (some classful), one IP range and you have to
subnet and make them all work and play or you don't pass.  After you know
the rules and practice a while you start seeing patterns and the numbers
jump into your head. Then you just double check it with an IP calculator
(see a previous post with a link and try using .253 netmask).  I have on my
PDA/phone that goes everywhere with me.

Say what you want about Cisco but subnetting is subnetting and you either
know it or you just think you do.  I know it and have proven it in both
school and in industry.

As for the problem, the good news is that it seems the problem was an
exercise.  There were some really doable answers including using a router.
The solution I gave will work, does not require a router and is simple-I
love siimple. And does not rely on an invalid netmask.  But others had
different approaches to solutions like the guy who offered a /23 but you had
to start a 0.x.  But he will have to wade through the chaff to get at the
kernels of wheat.

-- 
Wolf
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post all responses to UseNet.  All email cheerfully and automagically
routed to Dave Null