- Posts: 114
- Thank you received: 0
subnet mask
20 years 11 months ago #2414
by indebluez
subnet mask was created by indebluez
hi everyone
i was jus wonderin why isit that with a subnet mask of
255.255.255.0 we can have one subnet and 254 hosts?
i noe why 254 hosts...coz 2^8-2=254
but why one subnet?
thanx a million in advance:)
i was jus wonderin why isit that with a subnet mask of
255.255.255.0 we can have one subnet and 254 hosts?
i noe why 254 hosts...coz 2^8-2=254
but why one subnet?
thanx a million in advance:)
20 years 11 months ago #2416
by tfs
Thanks,
Tom
Replied by tfs on topic Re: subnet mask
I'm not sure what you are asking here. But 255.255.255.0 is not subnetted, unless your address happens to start with anything less that 192, then you have a subnetted address.
If not, you have a class C address and no subnet. If you subnet this address, you will not have 254 hosts any more. Each subnect "split" will lose you addresses, as each subnet will need to drop 2 addresses for network and broadcast.
Hope this helps,
Tom.
If not, you have a class C address and no subnet. If you subnet this address, you will not have 254 hosts any more. Each subnect "split" will lose you addresses, as each subnet will need to drop 2 addresses for network and broadcast.
Hope this helps,
Tom.
Thanks,
Tom
20 years 11 months ago #2418
by MaXiMuS
Replied by MaXiMuS on topic Re: subnet mask
Hey indibluez
with a mask of 255.255.255.0 ( default C class ), u havent subnetted ur network as yet , so u do have 254 hosts , but only 1 network and no subnets.
with a mask of 255.255.255.0 ( default C class ), u havent subnetted ur network as yet , so u do have 254 hosts , but only 1 network and no subnets.
20 years 11 months ago #2419
by Chris
Chris Partsenidis.
Founder & Editor-in-Chief
www.Firewall.cx
Replied by Chris on topic Re: subnet mask
The previous posts have pretty much covered this question!
You might want to read the subnetting section once again indebluez, especially if your new to the subnetting concept. Reading the material again and again will help you slowly understand how it works.
Considering the 'subnetting' topic is classified difficult for people that are new to it, I'd give it some time to let it sink in.
Cheers,
You might want to read the subnetting section once again indebluez, especially if your new to the subnetting concept. Reading the material again and again will help you slowly understand how it works.
Considering the 'subnetting' topic is classified difficult for people that are new to it, I'd give it some time to let it sink in.
Cheers,
Chris Partsenidis.
Founder & Editor-in-Chief
www.Firewall.cx
20 years 11 months ago #2425
by indebluez
Replied by indebluez on topic Re: subnet mask
its actually from the celticrover site....one of the ACCESS LIST LABS-telnet
the router has a serial and an ethernet interface, and we are supposed to block telnet access into the router...
the serial interface is connected to the rest of the network...
the ethernet int is connected to the host
the ans given -the router was configured such that theres an access list placed at both the interfaces denying access to the router.
I don;t understand why there should be an access-grp at interface serial with an "in"
interface serial 1
ip access-group 100 in
interface ethernet 0
ip access-group 100 in
shouldn't it be out?and cant we place both access-list on the same interface?why differnt int..
Thanx alot again
the router has a serial and an ethernet interface, and we are supposed to block telnet access into the router...
the serial interface is connected to the rest of the network...
the ethernet int is connected to the host
the ans given -the router was configured such that theres an access list placed at both the interfaces denying access to the router.
I don;t understand why there should be an access-grp at interface serial with an "in"
interface serial 1
ip access-group 100 in
interface ethernet 0
ip access-group 100 in
shouldn't it be out?and cant we place both access-list on the same interface?why differnt int..
Thanx alot again
Time to create page: 0.145 seconds