It will not be a huge problem to have different subnets on the switch but traffic would have to go to a router first. We wouldn't be able to take advantage of our gig speed between separate subnets. Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 11:50:55 To:"HCoop system administration discussion" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [HCoop-SysAdmin] Update > > On 17 Nov, 2006, at 22:37 , Nathan Kennedy wrote: > >> .48 is invalid, .49 is the gateway, .55 is our subnet broadcast >> address. so we have only 5 effective IP addresses out of the 8 IP >> subnet we requested. > > FWIW, this is normal - you're not getting screwed over. I thought so too, I think the tech was just being sloppy when he included it in the list of "usable IPs." >> however at any time we can request additional >> subnets of any size for free, if we use them. next time we should >> request at least a 16 iIP subnet. > > > I'd strongly advise doing this now so you don't have to renumber > later. It shouldn't be hard to come up with a reasonable and > truthful justification for an allocation of 14 usable IP addresses. We can request free additional subnets at any time and keep the old ones. I don't think it will create problems with our switch to have machines on different subnets. We should not have to renumber. We will need another subnet as soon as we get another machine besides Abu, because right now we only have one spare IP after Abu, and when I hook up my laptop that's the spare. We will need a chunk for those users who wanted https, and if we decide to get a Xen VPS server that will be another chunk. Is there a problem with Apache serving pages on different subnets? Can't a machine have IP addresses on different subnets without creating problems? > Also, how are you managing reverse DNS? We at Cernio just worked out > classless reverse DNS delegation with our colo provider for our /27 > and /26 IP allocations (totaling usable ~90 IPs) - I'd be happy to > give you our notes on how this was done with BIND9. We have yet to even set up DNS at Peer1--DNS for these machines is still being done by fyodor. Reverse DNS is producing strange results there so I think it needs to be redelegated. I saw your messages on the cernio list about reverse DNS, and our admins might find them and your notes useful, but it's something that I am not personally going to be involved with, I hope. -ntk _______________________________________________ HCoop-SysAdmin mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-sysadmin _______________________________________________ HCoop-SysAdmin mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-sysadmin
