Adam Cripps wrote:
> 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
That's weird, as long as they all have the same mask 192.168.x.x should be able to talk to 192.168.x.x.
What do you have the default gateways set to on all the devices ??
Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The views expressed here are my own and not necessarily
the views of Portsmouth College
