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

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

Roger Morris wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:22:14 -0700 (PDT), David Tisdell
<penguintiz yahoo com> wrote:

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 - 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.

I agree. Just make sure that your routers speak CIDR (with ciscos, this is now the default), and you're good to go. What we used to call supernetting works fine w/ GNU/Linux and, therefore, LTSP.

I've also used subnets of 10. and 172.16 with success as well. Note, though, that cisco wireless access points (not the Linksys models, I mean the actual Cisco-branded W.A.P.'s) use 10.0.0.x/24 by default.

Do you GNU!? <http://www.gnu.org>
Be virus- and spam-free with Free/Open Source Software (FOSS). Check it out! <http://www.mozilla.org/thunderbird>

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