Ted,
I patched same situation long time ago by putting an NT box on the same
level-2 switch (in order not to generate excess traffic) and making it the
default gateway for the 3000.
Regards,
-- Andres j. Ogayar
-- I.T. Department
-- Raytheon Microelectronics Espaņa, S.A.
-- +34.95.224.92.27 Tel.
-- +34.95.224.92.47 Fax.
This e-mail, including any attached files, is confidential, may be legally
privileged, and is solely for the intended recipient(s). If you received
this e-mail in error, please destroy it and notify the sender immediately
by reply or phone. Any unauthorized use, dissemination, disclosure, copying
or printing of this e-mail or any attached file is strictly prohibited.
Ted Ashton
<[log in to unmask] Para: [log in to unmask]
THERN.EDU> cc:
Enviado por: Asunto: Subnetting above C
HP-3000
Systems
Discussion
<HP3000-L@RAVE
N.UTC.EDU>
07/07/2002
17:35
Por favor,
responda a Ted
Ashton
Ok, I think I understand what is happening, but I'd like to know
a) if I am understanding correctly
b) what to do about the situation . . .
We are reconfiguring our network. Rather than use the class-C addresses as
we have in the past, we are glueing four of them together to make one large
"supernet" (well, what else is the opposite of subnet?). All well and good
in
most cases, except our 3000 :-(. I put in the NI address, which is on the
last
of the four class-C's. Then I put in the "Neighbor Gateway", which is in
the
first of the four. I put the subnet mask in as 255.255.252.0 and tried to
validate. No go. It says, "Gateway IP Network doesn't match NI IP network
or
check S&F". In reading the online docs, I came across statements which led
me
to the following understanding:
The network implementation on the 3000 recognizes the ranges of IP
addresses
and specifies a maxium size for a class-C "subnet" as 255.255.255.0. That
is,
if you want a subnet larger than a 256 addresses, you need to get a class-B
and subnet it. Thus, my 255.255.252.0 makes no difference, at least for
this
particular check. Is that so?
Is it true that it also makes no difference for the implementation
itself--that is, if I get an address on the first of the class-C's, so that
the gateway and the 3000 are on the same class-C and the check doesn't stop
validation, will the 3000 try to hand everything off to the gateway which
goes
to one of the other 3 class-C's?
Is my best plan to go ahead and do that anyway and simply tolerate the
extra
load on the gateway and network?
TIA,
Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([log in to unmask]) | From the Tom Swifty collection:
Southern Adventist University | "Your monster wears sandals. Your
monster
Deep thought to be found at | wears sandles," said Tom in a
thing-thong
http://www.southern.edu/~ashted | voice.
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
