On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Andrew Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Simon, I agree with you on the stupid manufacturers.... However I am > a consultant that is asked to fix the problem. If there is a > Microsoft Windows 3.1 system powering the patty packing system at a > meat packaging plant and the client wants it networked, I network it. > When a machine like a industrial packager or even an AS400 has been in > use for 15+ years replacing it is never an option as it has paid for > its self many times over.
I'd be more compelled by the "It works well, and it's big in a pain in the ass to move." argument, myself, but yeah I understand it's not really an option to replace such a thing. *shrug* I must admit, I'm not cognizant of any of the issues involved with something like that, and thankfully so; good thing meat packaging plants have people like you, I guess. > On the netmask issue. > > If you need a 16bit netmask the 192.168 network is for that. Hm. Most consumer routers I've seen are set up for the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet, IIRC. Another non-spec standard? > If you > need a 12bit address (~1million host) then the 172.16-31 network is > there for that. If you need 16+ million host you need to subnet. I don't suppose there's an RFC reserved range for "use as needed"? > Here is where an issue arises and causes all kinds of fun. Lets > imagine a multinational company that is using 192.168.0.0/16, > 172.16.0.0/12, and 10.0.0.0/8 on VLANs at 16 locations international. > Because they selected such large networks the address pools where > assigned to different areas and even statically assigned further. > > A few years go by.... > > They want to setup a MPLS network to interconnect and bridge the > sites. They call you. What are you going to do? Apparently, make a _ton_ of money off them. Or, more realistically, refer them to you so _you_ can make a _ton_ of money off them. ;-) > Imagine a public school that has a simple network of 172.16.0.0/20 and > they need to integrate into a statewide network. I am sure you can > write the routing information for that on a piece of paper. A well > defined network is easy to route, manage, and understand. Our network is well-defined, it's just well-defined outside of RFC spec, apparently, because we use the 10.0.0.0/8 range and it's not all crammed together in one humongous subnet. I thought you said the 172.16-32.*.* range was meant for 12 bit subnets, though. I'm a little confused, now; how would splitting that range into 20 bit subnets be any different than us splitting the 10.0.0.0/8 range into a bunch of smaller 16 and 24 bit subnets? > I hope that all the FWLUG folks can look at the networks they manage > and answer what the 5 and 10 year plan is. What happens if the > company/school is absorbed into a larger group? How is static > addressing handled? Why is their only one DNS server? Why have I not > played with http://ebox-platform.com/ before... Not likely in the least. As little as possible; I try to assign "static" IPs via DHCP as much as possible. There's one in each subnet that has workstations. Because I've never heard of it. > Now off to http://www.boswars.org/ for that afternoon battle.... Have fun! _______________________________________________ Fwlug mailing list [email protected] http://fortwaynelug.org/mailman/listinfo/fwlug_fortwaynelug.org
