**Disclaimer - all self-tought** Simple answer, you should have been fine having a server on 192.168.0.1/16 and a client on 192.168.1.1/16. (/16 is another way of writing 255.255.0.0)
When sending an IP packet, the sender compares it's IP and netmask with the IP and netmask of the receiver, and if the results match then it tries to talk direct. If they don't match then it uses it's routing tables to find out who to go through, and repeats the same process. Comparing IP/masks is a simple logic AND operation. 192.168.0.1 && 255.255.0.0 = 192.168.0.0 192.168.1.1 && 255.255.0.0 = 192.168.0.0 = match and should talk fine Using a class 'C' mask would give 192.168.0.1 && 255.255.255.0 = 192.168.0.0 192.168.1.1 && 255.255.255.0 = 192.168.1.0 = no-match needs routing There is no *magic* about class 'A' 'B' or 'C' netmasks, other than they split at byte-bounderies ( an typically that they have defined IP address ranges). There is nothing wrong with using the 192.168. Class B range as multiple class 'C'. Here we use the class 'A' private range 10. as multiple class 'B' subnets, one per physical site to aid routing and reduce the broadcasts that travel down the WAN lines. The netmask is purely a way of describing the number of bits - starting at the left - that signify how much of the IP address is network and how much is node. 128.0.0.0 = /1 = 10000000.00000000.00000000.00000000 255.0.0.0 = /8 = 11111111.00000000.00000000.00000000 (Class A mask) 255.255.0.0 = /16 = 11111111.11111111.00000000.00000000 (Class B mask) Hope this helps Gary On Wednesday 20 February 2002 9:41 am, Edward Dekkers wrote: > Just something that's always evaded my comprehension. > > I always use the 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 range for internal networks. > Usually the first 9 reserved for servers (.1-.10) and the rest clients. > From all the documentation I've read this is a Class B network (16 bit), > and to use it I should netmask 255.255.0.0. > > I was at a customer's the other day who uses the 192.168.1.x range. I put a > pre-prepared Linux box (RH7.2 if it matters) down there, with my usual > 192.168.0.1 ip set-up, but the clients just would not connect to it. Not > even ping it. The client's netmask WAS set to 255.255.0.0, so my question > is this: > > Can a client at let's say 192.168.1.x with netmask 255.255.0.0 connect to a > server at 192.168.0.1 with netmask 255.255.0.0? > > I've never pondered this before because as I said, I normally use the > 192.168.0 range only, but in this case, I had to change the server to > 192.168.1 range to make it work, when, from what I understand, I shouldn't > have had to. In the end it's all good and works, but why not with the > 192.168.0 range? I realise it's a different sub-net, but the mask should > take care of that no? > > Can anyone please kindly refer me somewhere that explains in plain English > what I'm misunderstanding? > > TIA -- Gary Stainburn This email does not contain private or confidential material as it may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000 _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
