Yarrggh!
Of course, that's
(2^n) (*not* 2^(n-1) )
Maybe there *is* something to that aspartame story ;>)
-------------------------------------------------
Tks��� ��� | <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BV��� ���� | <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sr. Technical�Consultant,� SBM, A Gates/Arrow Co.
Vox 770-623-3430�����������11455 Lakefield Dr.
Fax 770-623-3429���������� Duluth, GA 30097-1511
=================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Bob Vance
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 10:35 PM
To: CISCO_GroupStudy List (E-mail)
Subject: CCNA 2 and subnets
Sorry for the lame question, but I gotta know :|
We know that subnet -1 (all ones) is valid to config in IOS and that 0
is OK with
ip subnet-zero.
For purposes of CCNA 2, do we assume that subnet 0 and -1 are valid,
vs. CCNA 1 (where they were not) for questions like,
"How many subnets can we have with this mask?
"
?
Does the test make it clear in preliminary text?
The archives seem to have conflicting answers.
The Cisco Press ICND book (McQuerry, 1-57870-111-2) doesn't address the
issue head on, but simply shows tables with (2^(n-1))-2 subnets.
The Cisco Press 640-507 Cert Guide (Odom, 0-7357-0971-8) clearly says
that 2^(n-1) is correct and yet points out that 0 is only valid with
"ip subnet-zero" !
Does anyone know the *definitive* answer for CCNA 2.0 ?
-------------------------------------------------
Tks��� ��� | <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
BV��� ���� | <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sr. Technical�Consultant,� SBM, A Gates/Arrow Co.
Vox 770-623-3430�����������11455 Lakefield Dr.
Fax 770-623-3429���������� Duluth, GA 30097-1511
=================================================
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
