[KLUG Members] some network questions

[Chester Wisniewski]

Adam Tauno Williams wrote:

>>I think I need to give some more details about what we have observed.
>>Suppose you have a host on a site 192.168.1.23/16 on an other site there
>>is an host on 192.168.2.67/24. The can ping each other with no problem. At
>>some moment compression on the routers is switched on the get more
>>bandwith.
>>    
>>
>
>You can't do this.  You can't have a 192.168/16 subnet and a
>192.168.2/24 subnet in the same enterprise.  It won't work.  Change the
>192.168/16 subnet to 192.168.1/24.  Otherwise your subnets overlap.
>
>  
>
>>Then wise well paid guys who turned rarp on decide to turn it of again,
>>    
>>
>
>"well paid" maybe.
>
>  
>
>>that solves the bill but makes the 192.168.1.23/16 unavailable.
>>We look into it and find the netmask being wrong. Switching from /16 to
>>/24 solves this. Why?
>>    
>>
>
>Because then your network is correctly configured.
>
>  
>
>>That's also where to question about 255.254.255 comes up. What if we make
>>a  mistake by typing the 254 where it should have been 255? 
>>    
>>
>
>Don't. :)
>
>  
>
>>And why does make compression some hosts unavailable and hides/solves rarp
>>this?
>>    
>>
>
>I think this all goes back to your incorrect subnetting.
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Members mailing list
>Members at kalamazoolinux.org
>
>  
>
I am a few days behind, but the really screwy thing is that this WILL 
work. If Windows followed the RFCs it wouldnt, but Windows will somehow 
still talk to a machine on a different subnet on the same "wire" even 
though its default route doesnt work. I am not sure if this is still 
true in XP++ but, it was before for sure. This leads to much confusion 
amongst people about issues very much like this.

Just a note. :)

cw