Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:01:11 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au> To: "George M. Ellenburg" <gme@sundial.net> Cc: isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Subnetting, Firewalls, Class C's Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.971215085853.465U-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19971214144719.009403c0@sundial.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, George M. Ellenburg wrote: > > Suffering from a cold, and heavy medication, I wish to run the > following by some of you to confirm or deny that this subnetting > example will work; everything tells me yes, but I would appreciate a > second opinion: > > ip ranges netmask > 204.181.150.1 - > 204.181.150.14 255.255.255.240 Yes > 204.181.150.17 - > 204.181.150.30 255.255.255.240 YEs > 204.181.150.33 - > 204.181.150.46 255.255.255.240 Yes > 204.181.150.49 - > 204.181.150.54 255.255.255.248 Yes > 204.181.150.57 - > 204.181.150.254 255.255.255.56 No. If you want a huge subnet, the best you can do is 204.181.150.128:255.255.255.128 which gives you hosts .129-254. Danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.971215085853.465U-100000>