Thread View: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by WilliamChops Westfield
Wed, 15 Aug 1990 23:32
Re: Serial interfaces IP number question
Author: WilliamChops Westfield
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 1990 23:32
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 1990 23:32
45 lines
2065 bytes
2065 bytes
> We have the class B 131.195 address; we want to interconnect > 3 different sites with 3 different subnets, what should I use for > serial interfaces IP numbers? Each of my 3 Cisco have one ethernet and two > serial interfaces and we want to make a triangle with 3 Cisco's and > 3 serial links. > > I don't want to waist subnet because we are planning to interconnect > about 100 sites eventually. > > We use a 9 bits subnet (max. of 128 subnets with 512 machines each); > Site A = 131.195.2.x We have about 400 machines per site > Site B = 131.195.4.x > Site C = 131.195.6.x Well, I really like the idea I heard someone suggest a while ago on some other list - assign the subnet bits high-bit first, and the host addresses low bits first. This allows you to easilly expand the subnet field as the number of nets you are actually using goes up. For example, consider a class B address N.N.0.0. If you only have 3 networks now, you can get by with a 3 bit subnet mask (255.255.224.0), and assign 6 networks: N.N.128.0 N.N.64.0 N.N.192.0 N.N.32.0 N.N.96.0 N.N.160.0 If you need to add more networks, you change the netmask to 4 bits (255.255.240.0), freeing up an additional 8 networks, but all the old network numbers are still valid. This way, you only run into a problem if you actually get too many networks with too many hosts on each one. With the 8.1 software, you need not allocate a subnet to serial links, which may help in your case. Also, if only a few of the networks have 400 hosts, you can set up the ciscos to put two subnets worth of hosts on a single cable. Bill Westfield cisco Systems. -------
Re: Serial interfaces IP number question
Author: Kent England
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 1990 18:10
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 1990 18:10
16 lines
1124 bytes
1124 bytes
In article <24823@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, BILLW@mathom.cisco.com (WilliamChops Westfield) writes: > > Well, I really like the idea I heard someone suggest a while ago on some > other list - assign the subnet bits high-bit first, and the host addresses > low bits first. This allows you to easilly expand the subnet field as > the number of nets you are actually using goes up. > How do you suggest dealing with the node configurations? Should one be constantly changing the subnet mask? Use proxy arp forever? Wait for dynamic host configuration? I wish it was easier to change these sorts of things as we go along. --Kent
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads