Eric Sisler wrote:
> It seems to, but which netmask should be used? I'm assuming 255.255.255.0
> since it's been subnetted into class C's.
Yes. That's the one.
> Maybe they can run DHCP for
> their entire network on 1 server with 1 IP address since there's no
> physical separation anyhow.
They could run DHCP like that, but the Linux box wouldn't be able to
speak one of those subnets without a route to them, which there normally
won't be without the aliased IP. That subnet would have trouble talking
back, and the subnets can't talk to each other (even on the same
physical segment) over TCP/IP.
> For those PC's that should always be on a
> specific subnet, they could use a host/MAC mapping which is what I do on my
> network. Takes a little work to collect the MAC addresses from arp, but
> once it's working it doesn't take much upkeep.
Correct. Why are they subnetted anyway?
> That's kind of what I was wondering about. Fortunately, the aliased IP
> address serves no other purpose than DHCP - and since DHCP is a broadcast
> type service instead of source/destination (as you mentioned), I'm
> wondering if the alias is needed at all.
That depends. I pointed out why above. Exactly what functions does the
Linux box serve?
> The only thing I do know about their router is the routers for the virtual
> subnets are also "virtual" since there's no physical separation. (Or as my
> friend likes to call them "a router on a stick".)
Yes, and if the networks aren't separated, that means that any
communications between those subnets is transmitted on the same physical
segment twice...Yuck!!
> That's *exactly* what I was wondering about yesterday. Since the network
> segments are not physically separated how would DHCP know which subnet a
> computer is supposed to be on - it wouldn't. What I'm thinking is DHCP
> will assign addresses out of pool A until there's no more left and then
> assign from pool B. Is this correct thinking?
I don't know. I think that DHCP will simply server up all of the pool
A, and then stop giving out new ones.
> Right. That's how I would have done it were it my network, but it isn't.
> To be honest, I'm not really sure why their network is setup the way it is
> - it seems a little goofy to me but apparently it works for them. To each
> his own.
It's a lot goofy. And it's inefficient. If they're using 10Mbit,
they're going to run out of bandwidth fast.
> No offense taken. You've already helped me to clarify a few things I was
> wondering about - some of them before I had even asked the question. <grin>
Cool.
MSG
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
