Greetings.
If my knowledge of subnetting is correct, a netmask of 255.255.255.128
should work. One network would be composed of the host address range
of X.Y.Z.1 - X.Y.Z.126 with the Adresses X.Y.Z.0 and X.Y.Z.127 reserved
for broadcast protocols.
The other subnet would have a range of X.Y.Z.129 - X.Y.Z.254 with
X.Y.Z.128 and X.Y.Z.255 reserved for broadcasts.
But are you sure you want to put all 50 machines on one network, the
amount of packets dropped by packets by CSMACD collisions must be
frightening during peak hours...
Personal Opinions provided by
Leonard Miyata
aka leonard @
geminisecure .
com
GEMINI COMPUTERS INC
On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Mikael Suokas wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Note: no need to Cc: me, I will read the firewalls list when
> I have waded through the current 300 messages unread...
>
>
> Firewall relevance:
> -------------------
>
> Splitting a C class network in two, in order to create a DMZ.
>
> Question:
> ---------
>
> What can go wrong if a 255.255.255.128 netmask is used? RFC 950
> and Comer's "Internetworking With TCP/IP" recommends not using
> subnet masks with all zeros or ones in the subnet's network field.
> With one bit of subnetting, it would obviously be "all 1" or "all 0".
>
> Quote from RFC-950:
>
> It is useful to preserve and extend the interpretation of these
> special addresses in subnetted networks. This means the values
> of all zeros and all ones in the subnet field should not be
> assigned to actual (physical) subnets.
>
> What would be the best solution, when a subnet of > 60 hosts is needed?
> Also, renumbering of the current *.*.*.1 - *.*.*.50 range of machines
> is highly undesirable.
>
> regards,
>
> - Mikael Suokas -
>
> -_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-_-~-
> Mikael .
Suokas @
hut .
fi
> http://www.hut.fi/~csuokas/index.html
>
>
References:
|
|
