[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [K12OSN] Re: K12OSN Digest, Vol 8, Issue 62



On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:22:14 -0700 (PDT), David Tisdell
<penguintiz yahoo com> wrote:
> Jim,
> If you followed Terrell's proposal, you would be
> supernetting a class c address range. I have never
> done that but it probably works fine. Personally, I
> would select an address range in the private class a
> or b ranges (10.x.x.x for class a and 172.16.0.0 -
> 172.31.255.255 for class b)The subnet mask for class a
Well, it is CIDR isn't it?  'classless'
I would pick one in the 172 for a different reason.  That reason being
just about every device out there that does NAT out of the box, likes
to use 192.168.0.x
Just wait til a user brings a hub from home and plugs it in and starts
handing out DHCP.
Roger


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]