nv-l
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Router Configuration and Netview

To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Subject: Re: Router Configuration and Netview
From: Jeanie Cham <yccham@NCS.COM.SG>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 09:21:01 +0800
Reply-to: Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on NetView <NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
Sender: Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on NetView <NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
Hi Rob,

That looks like you've 2 subnets, first subnet is 172.19.14.0 & second is 
172.19.14.4.  It's quite obvious from your subnet
mask...:)

cheers,
Jeanie

Rob Wilkinson wrote:

> We have several routers (1700) that are various models like 25xx, 45xx and 
> 75xx.
>
> I noticed that on a 45xx router we have has two ip addresses for the same 
> interface as follows:
>
> root@mbems01[/usr/delme]>rnetstat.ksh hke01c45
> Interface                 IP address      Network Mask    Network Address 
> Link Address
> Serial10                  142.145.6.1     255.255.255.128 142.145.6.0     
> <none>
> Serial8                   142.145.15.2    255.255.255.128 142.145.15.0    
> <none>
> Serial2                   142.145.18.129  255.255.255.128 142.145.18.128  
> <none>
> Serial4                   142.145.65.129  255.255.255.128 142.145.65.128  
> <none>
> Serial7                   142.145.128.129 255.255.255.128 142.145.128.128 
> <none>
> Serial0                   142.145.143.1   255.255.255.128 142.145.143.0   
> <none>
> Serial5                   142.145.151.1   255.255.255.128 142.145.151.0   
> <none>
> Serial3                   142.145.159.1   255.255.255.128 142.145.159.0   
> <none>
> Serial1                   142.145.182.129 255.255.255.128 142.145.182.128 
> <none>
> Serial6                   142.145.239.1   255.255.255.128 142.145.239.0   
> <none>
> Serial9                   142.145.245.1   255.255.255.128 142.145.245.0   
> <none>
> Serial8                   172.19.14.2     255.255.255.252 172.19.14.0     
> <none>
> Serial9                   172.19.14.5     255.255.255.252 172.19.14.4     
> <none>
>
> See Serial9..
>
> Does any one know if Netview has problems with these so called "Private 
> addressing scheme"?
>
> I am told that these 172.* addresses are being defined to reclaim some of the 
> 142.* addresses because we ran out of 142's..
>
> Any thoughts?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web