Chuck, Your non sequitor is minor if it's only "one of those nights" My non sequitor is "one of those days and nights". Anyway, the reason i was curios about this was that most of the labs i've done (or remembered) were done with classless for the 172.16 and 192.168. Back when i did the RIP/IGRP to study for the CCNA i was using class A address ranges. I guess it's time to hit the rack. Thanks. Elmer
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Larrieu" To: ""Cebuano"" Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:09 PM Subject: Re: RFC on Private IP Address v.s. RIP/IGRP [7:38190] > interesting way to put the question. but...... > > 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16 are CIDR notation. any subnets within those > ranges would default to the classfull values based upon the first couple of > bits. remembering that 0 in the first position is class A, 10 in the first > two positions indicate class B, and 110 in the first three positions > indicate class C. RIP and IGRP are classful, and would note the classful > values. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ""Cebuano"" > Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco > Sent: Wednesday, 13 March, 2002 7:51 PM > Subject: RFC on Private IP Address v.s. RIP/IGRP [7:38190] > > > > Ladies and gents, > > If you are all aware of the RFC on Private IP Address allocation, it > > specifies > > that 172.16.0.0 uses /12 and 192.168.0.0 uses /16. > > Now does this mean our old friends RIP and IGRP are "aware" of this when > they > > perform the "First-Octet Rule" to apply the mask for these network ranges > > accordingly? > > > > Please someone clarify this subtle issue. > > Thanks. > > > > Elmer Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38216&t=38190 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
