VLSM question

bcall64

So I believe I figured out where I went wrong with VLSM thanks to Todd Lammle's book.

I think where I went wrong is I didn't realize you can't start a network on an address where the block wouldn't naturally fall on. For instance I can't have the network
192.168.1.32 /25 because that would be 192.168.1.32- 160 and 128 doesn't naturally begin or end on those addresses.

I could however have 192.168.1.0 /25 or 192.168.1.128 /25.

Is that correct or am I off?

bcall64

bcall64 wrote: »

So I believe I figured out where I went wrong with VLSM thanks to Todd Lammle's book.

I think where I went wrong is I didn't realize you can't start a network on an address where the block wouldn't naturally fall on. For instance I can't have the network
192.168.1.32 /25 because that would be 192.168.1.32- 160 and 128 doesn't naturally begin or end on those addresses.

I could however have 192.168.1.0 /25 or 192.168.1.128 /25.

Is that correct or am I off?

Anyone anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Heero

Exactly correct on that point.

bcall64

Saaaweeeeeettt.