[3999] in linux-net channel archive
Re: Subnetting, Arghh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jos Vos)
Sun Aug 11 12:40:19 1996
From: Jos Vos <jos@xos.nl>
To: mill0440@gold.tc.umn.edu (Henry W Miller)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 13:21:51 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960809065803.4548A-100000@gold.tc.umn.edu> from "Henry W Miller" at Aug 9, 96 07:11:50 am
> This depends on your setup. It looks like you want 5 subnets, in which
> case you would need a mask of 255.255.255.31, providing up to 30 hosts on
No! The netmask in that case is 255.255.255.224 !
> each network. This will not fit your scheme, but it is close enough that
> you may wish to make it work. you will have up to 8 different subnets
> avaibal in this case. (32*8=3D256) if you need more hosts on a network,
> some routers may be able to handle a variable subnetmask, so you could
> make the first 4 networks 255.255.255.31, and the final one
> 255.255.255.127, allowing one big network of 126, and 4 smaller ones of
You mean 255.255.255.128, but then you forget that you normally should
not use the first and last subnet. In case of the 224 netmask you
practically have 6 subnets available of 30 hosts.
> 30. (the fisrt network would be x.x.x.0-x.x.x.31, second 32-63,
> 64-95,96-127, and the final one x.x.x.128-x.x.x.255) I'm not sure if
> linux can handle this scheme though, and if it can you may not be able to
> use rip on the network. ospf ought to work, but static routes are the
> easiest way to route.
>
> I woudl recomend the 255.255.255.31 mask, and just stick to 30 hosts per
Again, 255.255.255.224.
--
-- Jos Vos <jos@xos.nl>
-- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364
-- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204
