Yes, you are right that your example doesn't show any savings of IP addresses.
Try other examples, though, such as: 191.100.48.0 through 191.100.55.0 In the olden days, that was impossible. The assignment had to be 191.100.0.0 191.100.255.0 You had to give away 64,000 addresses even if the company only needed 2048. Priscilla James Gosnold wrote: > > Ok, thanks for the reply Jason. I think the example I gave was > confusing me, sometimes these books don't use the best example. > > In the example I gave then am I to assume that this is NOT > conserving IP addresses but simply an efficient way of reducing > entries in routing tables? The examples you gave demonstrate > this more but in the one I put forward (pulling the bits to the > left) 8 Class C networks have been given away whichever way you > look at it. > > So this company could have been allocated either: > 200.100.48.0/24 > 200.100.49.0/24 > thru to > 200.100.55.0/24 > > Or they could be allocated 200.100.48.0/21, it's the same thing > but just one entry is needed on their 'border' router and > others with routes to their network? > > James. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56844&t=56739 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
