Re: Netmask

John Storms (jstorms@livingston.com)
Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:46:14 -0800

At 12:20 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, John G. Thompson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Scott A. Lagos wrote:
>>
>> > I have a Class C address (111.222.333.0) that I have subnetted to a
.240. I
>> > allow dial-in users to dial in, get a single Static IP and then do a
>> > framed-route for one of the subnets. Currently in the netmask table on the
>> > PM I have:
>> >
>> > Stored Netmask
>> > 111.222.333.0 255.255.255.240
>> >
>> > My question is do I have to put:
>> >
>> > 111.222.333.16 255.255.255.240
>> > 111.222.333.32 255.255.255.240
>> >
>> > and so on everytime I want to route another subnet from that class C across
>> > the PM or is the 111.222.333.0 255.255.255.240 enough? I seem to think
not.
>> > Please advise.

The "111.222.333.0 255.255.255.240" tells the PortMaster how the Class C is
broken up. Since subnet masks must be applied consistently thru a class C
then there is no need, and it is wrong to do so, to put a netmask entry in
the netmask table for each subnet.

It is a netmask table, rather than a subnet table.

---
jstorms@livingston.com
"I couldn't be more surprised if I woke up with
my head sewn into the carpet" - Clark Griswald