Re: Routing configuration
- From: cooldude <srivatsak.s@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:19:21 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 1, 1:06 am, David Schwartz <dav...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:33 am, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Wouldn't this violate the "except for the modem/router" requirement ?
I didn't read that as a requirement but as an exception to the
requirement. If someone says "everyone but Jack must have a coat",
that would normally be understood to mean that it's okay if Jack
doesn't have a coat, not that Jack must be prohibited from having one.
DS
Hi All,
Just a thought. What would happen if we connect both of the switches
( "I have two switches, A for the 192.168.0.0 network and and B for
the 192.168.2.0 network. " ). Can the machines on both of the subnet
communicate ? ( they can use the ARP and RARP protocol to get the
MAC / IP ). Let me know your thoughts.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Routing configuration
- From: Pascal Hambourg
- Re: Routing configuration
- From: Arun Vidarjee
- Re: Routing configuration
- References:
- Routing configuration
- From: Clark Smith
- Re: Routing configuration
- From: Pascal Hambourg
- Re: Routing configuration
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: Routing configuration
- From: Pascal Hambourg
- Re: Routing configuration
- From: David Schwartz
- Routing configuration
- Prev by Date: Traffic Control traffic unexpectedly dipping
- Next by Date: Re: Routing configuration
- Previous by thread: Re: Routing configuration
- Next by thread: Re: Routing configuration
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|