IP addressing...

This is what I did initially, I have this feeling it's wrong, read it. Just that I am not confident enough.

Now the switch connected to the router will have an IP address of

172.20.128.254, but the gateway will be configured to the Local IP address of the router; 172.20.128.253

=B7 To divide 172.20.128.254, to 4 subnets; the following process are taken.

The formula 2n - 2 =3D No. of subnet required (where n =3D no. bits to be removed from the host address)

172.20.128.254 =3D 10101100.00010100.10000000.11111110

Host address: 10000000.11111110

No. of bits to be taken out =3D 3 i.e. (100)

This is included to the network address to give the Subnet Mask;

(Since by convention, the bits for the network address are all set to

1, though it would also work if the bits were set exactly as in the network address) =3D 11111111.11111111.11111000.00000000

To get the Starting pool (subnet address), we do a bitwise AND function to the Subnet Mask & the IP address

We get; 10101100.00010100.100000000.00000000 Which is equivalent to; 172.20.128.0

So our IP range for the 5 switches will be 172.20.128.1 - 5.

Please, what I did is it anyway correct?

Thanks

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Not quite sure why you want 4 subnets when all the switches and clients are in the same remote office as per your pic. Assuming the network is a class c then you can use 172.20.128.1 - 254 for switches or clients.

so, you mean I can just hook up the workstation to the switches below, and allocate IP addresses to the workstations from; 172.20.128.1 - 254 ?

Sim> snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

yes :)

I am assuming you need to have 172.20.128.1-254 subnet running on your remote site. If yes you can have following network topology which is simple to configure and understand.

ISP | Router | Switch------------Switch-------------Switch | | | WORKSTATIONS

For this we can have 172.20.128.1. as default gateway for all system and 172.20.128.2-254 would be your workstations IP.

Try and get back

Rate if help

CK

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

We'll get him there CK :)

CK wrote:

thanks SIMON i will

CK

Sim> We'll get him there CK :)