RE: two subnets thru same wire
mlists_at_tdbnetworks.org
Date: 03/25/05
- Previous message: kanhu rauta: "Default Gateway Thorough A Programme"
- In reply to: David Balazic: "RE: two subnets thru same wire"
- Next in thread: Sub Zero: "RE: two subnets thru same wire"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list <redhat-list@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:31:22 +0000
Shiraz I've answered each question inline below:
> My question realtes the fact, whether we can have two
> subnets passing thru same wire and communicating with
> each other. The two subnets are:
> -----------------
> | Hub |
> -----------------
> | | | |
> ----------------- | | ---------------
> | ------- ------- |
> | | | |
> 192.168.10.3 | | 192.168.11.5
> A 192.168.11.3 192.168.10.5 D
> B C
>
> It is a six port Hub. Four hosts with IP addresses
> given above are attached to the hub. There are two
> subnets 192.168.10.0 and 192.168.11.0.
> The netmask is 255.255.255.0 in all cases.
>
> Q1: Will Host A be able to talk to Host C?
Yes, They have the same subnet mask and network address
> Q2: Will Host B be able to talk to Host D?
Yes, They have the same subnet mask and network address
> Q3: If the communication is possible, are there likely
> to be any problems?
Their can be problems cause by this kind of setup but it all depends on
whether this is a test setup at home or a real scenario at work in a
large network.
From a strategic point of view I would always advise against more than
a class c in one broadcast domain, this means that you should either put
them on different switches bounded by a router or use a single switch
with multiple vlans and again bound them with a router.
> Q4. If instead of switch, we use hub, will it make any difference?
Switches are higher performance devices which can be managed and
controlled so I would have to ask again whether you are doing this at
home or in a large scenario at work.
On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 09:26 +0100, David Balazic wrote:
> If you set the netmask to 255.255.0.0 on all hosts, then this will work
> without any problems.
>
> A switch will give better performance under high loads, otherwise it is more
> or less the same a normal hub.
>
> Regards,
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com]
> On Behalf Of Shiraz Baig
> Sent: 25. marec 2005 5:34
> To: redhat
> Subject: two subnets thru same wire
>
>
> My question realtes the fact, whether we can have two
> subnets passing thru same wire and communicating with
> each other. The two subnets are:
> -----------------
> | Hub |
> -----------------
> | | | |
> ----------------- | | ---------------
> | ------- ------- |
> | | | |
> 192.168.10.3 | | 192.168.11.5
> A 192.168.11.3 192.168.10.5 D
> B C
>
> It is a six port Hub. Four hosts with IP addresses
> given above are attached to the hub. There are two
> subnets 192.168.10.0 and 192.168.11.0.
> The netmask is 255.255.255.0 in all cases.
>
> Q1: Will Host A be able to talk to Host C?
> Q2: Will Host B be able to talk to Host D?
> Q3: If the communication is possible, are there likely
> to be any problems?
> Q4. If instead of switch, we use hub, will it make any difference?
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>
> --
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
- Previous message: kanhu rauta: "Default Gateway Thorough A Programme"
- In reply to: David Balazic: "RE: two subnets thru same wire"
- Next in thread: Sub Zero: "RE: two subnets thru same wire"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
