On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Kendall Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I'm having a hard time understanding it. In many places they use 2
> numbers, e.g. 2(21) or 232 (4,294,967,296). Can you understand what they
> are saying?
Sounds like the superscript notation for exponentiation was lost
somewhere along the line. If we instead use 'x^y' to represent x to
the y'th power, then that text should have ended with something like
e.g., 2 (2^1) or 2^32 (4,294,967,296).
> "IPv4 defines a 32-bit address which means that there are
> only 232 (4,294,967,296) IPv4 addresses available."
>
> 232 what?
That should be 2^32 too
> On page 11:
>
> "The first step in the planning process is to take the maximum number of
> subnets required and round up to the nearest power of two. For example,
> if an organization needs nine subnets, 23 (or 8) will not provide
> enough subnet addressing space, so the network administrator will
> need to round up to 24 (or 16)."
>
> 23 or 8 what? Bits? What are 23 and 8 alternatives of? 24 or 16 looks
> like alternative prefix lengths for class A or B networks, but I don't
> get 23 or 8.
2^3 = 8
2^4 = 16
Philip Guenther
