On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 03:35:49PM +0300, Amir Sela wrote:
>
>
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > Network Broadcast Netmask Hosts
> > 192.168.1.0 192.168.1.63 255.255.255.192 62
> > 192.168.1.64 192.168.1.127 255.255.255.192 62
> > 192.168.1.128 192.168.1.255 255.255.255.128 124 (see note)
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > Note: the reason the last network has only 124 usable network
> > addresses (not 126 as would be expected from the network mask) is that
> > it is really a 'super net' of two subnetworks. Hosts on the other two
> > networks will interpret 192.168.1.192 as the network address of the
> > 'non-existent' subnetwork. Similarly, they will interpret
> > 192.168.1.191 as the broadcast address of the 'non-existent'
> > subnetwork.
> >
> >
> > So, if you use 192.168.1.191 or 192 as host addresses on the third
> > network, then machines on the two smaller networks will not be able to
> > communicate with them.
> >
> >
> > \begin{interruptRequest}
> >
> > How does the 2 smaller networks know that 192.168.1.191 and 192 were
> > initially a broadcast and network addresses? Would they treat any one of
> > 192.168.*.19[12] in the same way?
> >
> > \end{interruptRequest}
> >
> >
I start feeling that someone should tell me straight in the face that
I should do a lot of reading before posting another message after this
one.
> First of all, just to make sure we're on solid ground - you need to
> realize that once you subnet, the "lowest common denominator" is used,
> that is, as in the example, if you have 8 bits of hosts, and decided to
> subnet that to 11000000, you now have 4 subnetworks. Essentially what
> they did in the example was a two stage operation:
> A) create 4 different subnetworks -> subnetmask(in our case) is 26 bits
> B) supernet between two of the newly created subnetworks -> subnetmask
> is 25 bits on two of the subnetworks.
Must I begin with 4 subnetworks and then merge 2 of them in order to
end up with exactly those 3 subnetworks? The answer is probably yes and
the reason for this is what I fail to understand.
> I'm stating this because your question was defocused. the 2 smaller
> networks know that 192.168.1.191 and 192 are "special" addresses,
> because they still are. Lets assume that our networks are A,B,CD.
> When the tcp-ip stack in a host in A initializes, it ANDs its own IP
> address against the subnetmask to determine its home network number.
> Then, every outgoing packet goes through the same process. if the
> resulting bit string is different than that host's own result, the
> packet is known to be out of this host's network, and the ARP request is
> made to the default gateway, for forwarding.
An ARP request? What for? Is it to find the MAC of the default
gateway? ARP maps the MACs into IPs, doesn't it? An ARP request would
send the MAC address and expects to get in reply the IP that correspond
that MAC, isn't it?
> What will happen with 191
> is that you will be requesting the host on subnet A to send a broadcast
> packet to network C
Why would a host on subnet A consider 191 to be a broadcast address?
Why it wouldn't consider 192.168.*.191 to be all broadcast addresses?
> packet to network C(again, by definition, supernetting 2 smaller
> networks out of 4 is completely transparent to hosts in the 2 small
> networks).
Why the 2 smaller networks have to consider the fact that CD is a
supernet? Once again, why 192.168.1.191 is considered by them to be a
broadcast address while any other IP from 192.168.*.191 is fine?
> And with 192, you'll be requesting the host on subnet A to
> send a packet to the network address of network D. Both of these cases
> are obviously broken.
> The funny thing is that the so called CD network does not really exist.
According to the mini HOWTO it exists in the routing table of the
router (section 7.1). It also exists as far as hosts on CD are
concerned. Nothing mentions C and D separately, the router specifically
mentions the combined CD and you still claim that the separate networks
exists but not the combined one. I can't understand that.
> Supernetting is actually a sort of a hack. you simply remove 1 bit on
> all the hosts on networks C and D, and it "just works"..
Except from the fact that for some hosts (the ones on A and B) 2 hosts
out of it don't exists.
Let me put it otherwise. Suppose I was sub netting valid Internet
addresses, say 192.1.1.0 in a similar manner. Would you, with your
current IP, be able to contact 192.1.1.191 or would it be regarded as a
broadcast address as far as you are concerned?
>
> To summon it up: from the two other networks' point of view, you're
> trying to send packets to broadcast and network addresses. And they know
> it because they're supposed to know it. Their subnet masks tells them
> that.
They should use their subnet masks only for themselves, shouldn't
they? Why are they making assumptions based on their subnet masks with
regard to a totally strange network? Why they don't do that for all the
addresses in 192.168.*.*? Or is making those assumptions for the A (1 to
126), or B (128 to 191) or C (192 to 254) Internet address classes that
one is connected to all that sub networking is about?
--
Shaul Karl, [EMAIL PROTECTED] e t
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
