Date: 11 May 2001 20:48:35 +0100 From: Wayne Pascoe <wayne.pascoe@realtime.co.uk> To: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> Cc: , questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OT: TCP/IP Subnetting Message-ID: <86g0ebmzu4.fsf@pan.penguinpowered.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <200105111731.f4BHVRc07397@ptavv.es.net> References: <200105111731.f4BHVRc07397@ptavv.es.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> writes: > Break up the /25 as follows: > Size Addresses Start Address Net Mask > /26 62 addresses 128.1.1.128 255.255.255.192 > /27 30 addresses 128.1.1.192 255.255.255.224 > /28 14 addresses 128.1.1.224 255.255.255.240 > /29 6 addresses 128.1.1.240 255.255.255.248 Ok, what I finally settled on was 4 /27's... It means that I have to give a bunch of extra addresses to the network that only needs 4, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Now that I'm looking at your example, I'm thinking yours may be better. Is there any advantage to it other than more bigger ranges and not losing extra addresses to the other network ? > While this looks ugly, it's how the Internet works and all providers > do this routinely, although it's far easier to configure on a Cisco or > Juniper than on a FreeBSD host. I was planning on putting a cisco 2621 in between each of the 3 /27's to handle routing between them. Traffic between them should be minimal, and machines that need to talk to each other a lot will be on the same segment. Does this make sense ? This router would then handle the outgoing route from all these machines. -- - Wayne Pascoe E-mail: wayne.pascoe@realtime.co.uk Phone : +44 (0) 20 7544 4668 Mobile: +44 (0) 788 431 1675 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86g0ebmzu4.fsf>