From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Apr 19 2002 - 18:58:15 GMT-3
At 4:47 PM -0500 4/19/02, DAN DORTON wrote:
>When I say your own I mean...
>
>Give them a major net 135.50.0.0/16, or something like that.
>
>Then say R2 tokenring needs to be a /28.
>
>R3 to R5 P2P connection needs to have no more than two host addresses.
>
>So on & so forth.
>
>Make them work a bit to figure it out.
>
>This was vital to my understanding of subnettting/VLSM/CIDR.
>
>I thought I really knew all this stuff well until I hit the rack.
>
>Then I realized after 8 months that now I can crank it out without
>even thinking about it & how little I really did know.
>
>Also as far as time is concerned.
>
>I can address & get layer 2 operational on a 10 router lab in less
>than an hour. frame/atm/switching/ the works.
>
>Helps pound all the meaningless stuff that you might overlook into
>your head so far that you can never forget it.
>
>Of course this is just my opinion.
And a good one, because you are opening up a whole area of discussion
on addressing models for study. My practice is generally to use lots
of /24 and smaller, except when doing BGP models that call for
multilevel aggregation. My rationale for using /24, and often
smaller, is to force people out of classful thinking.
I do have a couple of variants, one of which is like yours -- a
single /16, and another that has two or three /16 to force some
discontiguous networks.
What I hear you saying is that having one large network number allows
you to focus on learning the hierarchical aspects of VLSM/CIDR. The
only problem I have with doing that generally is that you won't have
problems with auto-summary and discontiguous networks.
Thanks. Good stuff.
Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:14 GMT-3