On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 07:58:37AM -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Joachim Schipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's usually better to divide into subnets. /24 is the standard, and
> > plenty big enough for any home LAN. This makes routing tables less
> > complicated (for instance, the NetGear would need a /32 route entry for
> > both 1.1 and 1.2, as would 0.4 and 0.19; this would be more elegantly
> > solved by reserving 192.168.1.0/24 for the whole net behind 0.4 and
> > 192.168.2.0/24 for the whole net behind 0.19; 192.168.0.0/24 is then the
> > network that is directly attached to the NetGear).
>
> Sorry to keep at this when the setup is now moved to the simpler
> format, but its really interesting to me since I'm in the middle of
> trying to underdstand more about networking and your comments have
> been very helpfull and readable.
>
> In the scheme you lay out above a couple of things puzzle me.
> 1) NetGear would need a /32 route entry for both 1.1 and 1.2,
> as would 0.4 and 0.19;
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. can you show a route command that
> would set that for one of them... like 1.1
Well, I don't know NetGear, but on OpenBSD (and, indeed, most
UNIX-alikees):
# route add 192.168.1.1 192.168.0.4
# route add 192.168.1.2/32 192.168.0.4
are equivalent and will do what you want. Upon closer inspection of your
diagram, though, it appears that the 192.168.1.0/24 network is actually
connected. In this case, pick one of the hosts (.4 and .19, I believe)
and do
# route add 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.0.4
> 2) Reserve the whole net behind [...] on 192.168.1/24 192.168.2/24
> respectively.
>
> In that setup, how would 192.168.1/24 192.168.2/24 talk to each
> other. Wouldn't they need a router between the two subnets?
Sorry, I got confused here about what your diagram represented. I
thought they were, indeed, separate subnets.
Joachim
