Re: simple routing problem

[Peter Peltonen]

Leonard den Ottolander wrote:

>  Well, I guess you could get yourself a few more usable addresses by adding
> 240/248 and 248/252. And in your first setup you didn't use so many subnets.
> Why not fuse 192/240 + 208/240 = 192/224?

That seems reasonable, yes.

Another suggestion I got was this:

'Why don't you just "steal" the net252/m252 from the net192/m128? That way you
would have only two networks xxx.xx.xxx.128/25 and xxx.xx.xxx.252./30. The
networks will go to eachother's territory but that shouldn't matter because
routing happens always using the longest netmask.'

Would that be a possible solution?

Peter



_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list