RE: [suse-security] Multiple Internal Networks not Routing
-----Original Message----- From: Philipp Rusch [mailto:philipp.rusch@rusch-edv.de] Sent: 07 April 2004 10:50 To: suse-security@suse.com Subject: Re: [suse-security] Multiple Internal Networks not Routing
In your case, if you are still free to choose your network adresses and don't have more than 254 hosts, I would strongly recommend that you go for something like 192.168.1.x/24 on eth1 and 192.168.2.y/24 on eth2 or if you have more hosts, go for 172.16.1.x/16 on eth1 if there is the majority of your hosts and take 192.168.2.x/24 for eth2.
You do not necessarily have to stick to the old "class" boundaries. You can choose to use only the 172.16.x.x/16 range and then sub divide it into smaller or bigger parts for each network using variable length subnet masks like the /20 /19 /22 etc which give you more hosts without restricting you to the old class boundaries which is exactly what CIDR was meant to solve. ( CIDR= Classless InterDomain Routing) Noah.
Yes, of course, these classes were never meant to be fix. But I doubt that M$ clients always stick to the rules when it comes to routing .... Have you ever tried to "convince" a w2k DHCP server to hand out "non-standard" ip adresses/masks? Had a server doing it correctly in the morning and after several hours it did something else but not what was defined. Have several experiences like this, never had a problem with unusual ip/mask combinations with cisco routers for instance. Just my 2 cents, Philipp sematin@mtn.co.ug schrieb:
-----Original Message----- From: Philipp Rusch [mailto:philipp.rusch@rusch-edv.de] Sent: 07 April 2004 10:50 To: suse-security@suse.com Subject: Re: [suse-security] Multiple Internal Networks not Routing
In your case, if you are still free to choose your network
adresses
and don't have more than 254 hosts, I would strongly
recommend that
you go for something like 192.168.1.x/24 on eth1 and
192.168.2.y/24
on eth2 or if you have more hosts, go for 172.16.1.x/16 on eth1 if there is the majority of your hosts and take
192.168.2.x/24 for eth2.
You do not necessarily have to stick to the old "class" boundaries. You can choose to use only the 172.16.x.x/16 range and then sub divide it into smaller or bigger parts for each network using variable length subnet masks like the /20 /19 /22 etc which give you more hosts without restricting you to the old class boundaries which is exactly what CIDR was meant to solve. ( CIDR= Classless InterDomain Routing)
Noah.
Well Guys! I'm not sure what happened between yesterday and this morning, but it looks like everything is routing like it should! I didn't really make any changes from last night till today, but this morning everything seems to be working like it should. Pings are going through, trace routes are working, and network paths are working. Thanks for everyone who helped out! Thank You, Jason Dobbs . IT Manager Westin Casuarina Casino Las Vegas Philipp Rusch wrote:
Yes, of course, these classes were never meant to be fix. But I doubt that M$ clients always stick to the rules when it comes to routing .... Have you ever tried to "convince" a w2k DHCP server to hand out "non-standard" ip adresses/masks? Had a server doing it correctly in the morning and after several hours it did something else but not what was defined. Have several experiences like this, never had a problem with unusual ip/mask combinations with cisco routers for instance.
Just my 2 cents, Philipp
sematin@mtn.co.ug schrieb:
-----Original Message----- From: Philipp Rusch [mailto:philipp.rusch@rusch-edv.de] Sent: 07 April 2004 10:50 To: suse-security@suse.com Subject: Re: [suse-security] Multiple Internal Networks not Routing
In your case, if you are still free to choose your network
adresses
and don't have more than 254 hosts, I would strongly
recommend that
you go for something like 192.168.1.x/24 on eth1 and
192.168.2.y/24
on eth2 or if you have more hosts, go for 172.16.1.x/16 on eth1 if there is the majority of your hosts and take
192.168.2.x/24 for eth2.
You do not necessarily have to stick to the old "class" boundaries. You can choose to use only the 172.16.x.x/16 range and then sub divide it into smaller or bigger parts for each network using variable length subnet masks like the /20 /19 /22 etc which give you more hosts without restricting you to the old class boundaries which is exactly what CIDR was meant to solve. ( CIDR= Classless InterDomain Routing)
Noah.
participants (3)
-
Jason Dobbs -
Philipp Rusch -
sematin＠mtn.co.ug