I think the original poster misunderstands that supernetting is a routing
function and not something you configure on the PC, but then maybe we're
only confusing terms........
I have flattened a network before and more planning is required than one
might think.
For only 520 addresses, a 255.255.252.0 or /22 would suffice.
You might want a separate network for the server farm. There still might be
reasons for separate subnets (or vlans).
And why visit all the machines? DHCP was mentioned, the DHCP scope should
be changed and that's it. (depending on what you're sending down).
Servers will probably need to be done manually and the router for the
segment will have to be modified.
But the best part is that I get to ask the question: What problem are you
trying to solve?
The last time I got to flatten a network was when the network was being
re-addressed because of lack of address allocation. There were 10 subnets
spanning 2 class C's.
We also moved from a routed backbone to a switched backbone.
The migration was a success but we planned it for well over a month due to
number of servers that we didn't have direct control over and the
co-ordination that required.
Anyway, I think the short answer is - why can't changing the DHCP parameters
handle your new addressing scheme? sorry - that was a question!
Kevin Wigle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "jeongwoo park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Groupstudy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: After supernetting!!
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, jeongwoo park wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> > Let's say there are 5 subnets (Class B/16 subnet mask)
> > consisting of approximately 500 DHCP clients and 20
> > servers.
> > Someone as a Network Expert suggested flattening the
> > network. As a Network newbie, I simply followed the
> > instruction from the book on how to supernet, and
> > finally summarized those 5 contiguous subnets into
> > following address: 123.80.0.0/14 (**this is a made-up
> > number) Now I am done with supernetting. What is the
> > next to be done?
> > What should I do with this ip address?
> > Should I go to physically to these 520 stations one by
> > one for new tcp/ip setup? I think there should be
> > better way than this.
>
> Supernetting, summarizing, whatever you want to call it, at aggregation
> points within your network is a great idea, so yes I agree that somewhere
> in your network you should try to aggregate routes as much as possible.
>
> Flattening a /14 worth of space and giving users a 255.252.0.0 netmask on
> their desktops sounds more like "Super-kludging" than "supernetting" :)
>
> Why would you have 520 stations consuming a /14 worth of space anyways?
>
> Brian
>
>
> >
> > Looking for your help.
> >
> > Thanks
> > jw
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place.
> > http://shopping.yahoo.com/
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Brian Feeny, CCNP, CCDP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Network Administrator
> ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881)
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
