On 8/9/07, Adam Cripps <kabads@???> wrote:
> On 8/8/07, Brian Chivers <brian@???> wrote:
> > Adam Cripps wrote:
> > Yes I know that this is an illegal subnet mask but it works, we do this in college to allow us to
> > have a separate subnet for each room of machines. We have servers on 192.168.0.x, domain admins on
> > 192.168.200.x, printers on 192.168.100.x and so on.
> >
> > It also makes it quite easy to setup egress rules on firewalls etc.
>
> I've configured both ADSL router and wireless router to have a mask of
> 255.255.0.0 and the machines reflect this once they have acquired an
> IP address from DHCP:
>
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:15:58:22:07:4D
> inet addr:192.168.1.6 Bcast:192.168.255.255 Mask:255.255.0.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:9666 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:9939 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
> RX bytes:1754135 (1.6 MiB) TX bytes:1245174 (1.1 MiB)
> Interrupt:17 Base address:0x6000
>
>
> but they still don't talk to each other.
>
> The wireless has similar output (same mask) as above but with IP
> address 192.168.11.2.
>
> I also have a static and dynamic routing table in my ADSL router's
> config options - would setting this up help the two networks talk
> properly to each other? If so, how might I go about it?
It seems that by changing the mask to 255.255.0.0 the wireless router
(192.168.11.1) cannot see the ADSL router (192.168.1.1) and has lost
connectivity.
Adam
--
http://www.monkeez.org
PGP key: 0x7111B833
