From: Michele Andreoli (m.andreoli@tin.it)
Date: Tue Sep 05 2000 - 10:08:57 CEST
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:23:19PM +0200, Sven Conrad nicely wrote:
>
> Is this understandable? sorry I'am an Engineer and so no good
> in teaching.
You are clear as usual. Because you touched the "subnetworking" topic,
I submit you a question, coming from the IP-Subnetworking mini-Howto:
The author explain how to split in 4 part a single class C network
This is the text:
==========================================================================
______________________________________________________________________
Network Broadcast Netmask Hosts
192.168.1.0 192.168.1.63 255.255.255.192 62
192.168.1.64 192.168.1.127 255.255.255.192 62
182.168.1.128 192.168.1.255 255.255.255.126 124 (see note)
______________________________________________________________________
Note: the reason the last network has only 124 usable network
addresses (not 126 as would be expected from the network mask) is that
it is really a 'super net' of two subnetworks. Hosts on the other two
networks will interpret 192.168.1.192 as the network address of the
'non-existent' subnetwork. Similarly, they will interpret
192.168.1.191 as the broadcast address of the 'non-existent'
subnetwork.
==========================================================================
But I can't absolutely understand why two subnets are joined in a single
network. Why .192 is a network address of the 'non-existent' subnetwork ?
Michele
-- I'd like to conclude with a positive statement, but I can't remember any. Would two negative ones do? -- Woody Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.auc.dk For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.auc.dk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET