I have a 192.168.42.x/27 classless IP address

IT, Networking.
I'm getting my CompTIA A+ network certificate.

There is another one called supernetting. Where you are essentially combing to networks to form a giant network or something.

what are you even learning from?

cause the first question is senseless

"solve for network" what, you're defining a range of 32 addresses at 192.168.43."x"
"x" what, though? 192.168.43.0-31, 192.168.43.32-63, 192.168.42.64-95, etc
the "network" of each of those is the first number in the range, the broadcast is the last number in the range, and the usable hosts are the numbers between
but you're not even asking a valid question with the information provided and the question being asked

the OP think he's smart. :))

The question is specifically asking for valid hosts that can be used. with an IP address of 192.168.42.x/27.
I hope that makes sense.
So we will have a subnet mask of 255.255.255.224
So 224 is represented as 11100000 0 So, you will have a total of 8
1 networks.
10
11
100
101
110
111
What this looks like is this:
0 (1-30) 31
32 (33-62) 63
64 (65-94) 95
96 (97-126) 127
128 (129-158) 159
160 (161-190) 191
192 (193-254) 255
Net Host Broadcast

A valid IP will look like this 192.168.42.34 /27 or 192.168.42.150 /27

Thank you!

the way that op wrote it, i would have never been able to figure out that was the information being requested

when the second thing is defined as a new question, it doesn't seem to be a part of the same problem, even though it's using the same range
also the second problem's answer (if simply looking for the mask to use) is the first problem's question (since it provides a range of 32 which is the smallest range 25 hosts would fit in), which is silly

Why the fuck would we do it??? It's not difficult, it's time consuming. I'm a busy man.

What?

sir please do the needful and research your own homework. or don't and just cheat/lie your way to your degree/job like most of you street shitters do, you'll still get hired because they want the cheap diversity hire instead of white Americans, so you can be basically clueless about everything as long as you can bullshit your way through the interview and talk about how difficult India was and the hr/hiring people will be sjws most likely and be like wow so diverse and unique, you're hired! just don't molest anyone on the flight to America and don't rape anyone as it's not India, and learn to poo in loo, and you'll be golden.

Attached: Screenshot_20181214-165814_Firefox_1.png (1440x2062, 851K)

Hmm, no I think the second question is a bit different.
Lets see:

192.168.42.x
Since we are solving for host, we will add 2 (Network, and Broadcast is the two that are being added here) to 25. So, 27. Now we refer to binary here: 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
So, Host =00000 Network =111 --->11100000 next we figure out the subnet mask. So, subnet mask is 224.
Then we grab our 111, then figure out how many unique binary bits 111 can make.
0
1
10
11
100
101
110
111
Finally we figure out our ranges:
0 (1-30) 31
32 (33-62) 63
64 (65-94) 95
96 (97-126) 127
128 (129-158) 159
160 (161-190) 191
192 (193-222) 223
224 (225-254) 255
Net Host Broadcast
Valid IPs are: 192.168.42.162 with a CIDR notation of /27

And back to school you go, also thanks for the help, faggots.

I fuckin hated this part of IT110 and IT260

For sure.

>classless IP address

Find a better school.

Like what user? Oh wait, you're just a dropout.

Attached: large.jpg (461x461, 32K)

>Since we are solving for host
how are you interpreting that from the question?

when i read "Solve for 25 hosts, faggots.", my quickest interpretation of a school question would be that we're looking to get the most networks possible out of 192.168.42."x", meaning of course we select the /27 mask in order to accommodate the 25 hosts in the given network

Augh, I might have effed up somewhere in there. Idk, give me a break man, I'm not the guy who asked this shit.

oh hey man, i'm not trying to get on your case about it or anything, sorry if it seems that way

i just don't understand what the fuck op was trying to ask either, so was trying to figure out why you wanted to solve it that way

just to reiterate, i don't feel like op asked a question in the way that can be answered in the first place
their fault for trying to be snarky instead of just copy and pasting their assignment verbatim

someone that doesn't understand the material in the first place is going to have trouble asking the question

Yeah, I too didn't understand the original question.

UMUC

Hey user, your mommy is calling. She says she wants her tuition back, you stupid dumbo.

Attached: NSo7Oqj0bF2OXPLMx_zGn0a5xTfHNwPCkf02cS085rM.jpg (640x620, 55K)

if your job ever has to deal with subnetting just quit.

if you ever find yourself needing a subnet you need to go back to school

What do you mean user? The entire point is to create network addresses that can be used??

The only reason you'd need subnetting is if you have 65536 devices on one network, and thats under 192.168.x.x

If you ever think you're going to need more then that configure your network to use 20 bit for over a million devices or even 24bit networks for 16+ million.

Subnetting is a 40 year old solution to a current day problem. Its quite literally why IPv6 was brought about. With IPv6 you could give every star in the galaxy an IP address and still a have plenty more where that came from.

From what I remember in classes, didn't we like run out of IPv4 addresses?

>The only reason you'd need subnetting is if you have 65536 devices on one network
or much more commonly, the opposite, and you need to define many networks with few addresses available

>The only reason you'd need subnetting is if you have 65536 devices on one network
Wtf? No the entire point of classless subnetting is to not waste IP addresses.

it depends on your definition of running out
all addresses have been an an owned state, but places like IBM and ford own ludicrous amounts of addresses, like even up to two class a address spaces, which is enormously wasteful
there has been some voluntary reclamation and reassignment

for the most part, with NAT, we can make ipv4 work today still
we don't have so many devices that need so many open sockets where we can't just NAT to fix most problems, but moving along to ipv6 is still a better idea

NAT (Network Address Translation) is what allows you to use multiple private IPv4 address to one public IPv4 address, right?

i'd like to add to this, for any network engineers there that have more logic knowledge than i do

let's say we stubbornly decide to continue using ipv4, and have to NAT the everloving shit out of all the devices, and we begin to run out of available ports to have open for the connections for TCP
would it be possible for us to wind up with a TCP channel system, such as TCP1, TCP2, TCP3, etc?
maybe there could be a standard definition for like mobile devices to be on TCP channel 2, so all the devices and services that want to use mobile-style traffic, pull mobile web pages, etc, all have NAT rules so that, 50 mobile devices behind one wan facing ipv4 address would be able to have their 1000 sockets a piece open for lord knows what, but not disturb 50 desktop devices all doing the same, but on their TCP channel 1?

>Solve for 25 hosts, faggots.
Like this?
>sipcalc 192.168.42.0/26
>Addresses in network - 64
Maybe there is a smaller one?
>sipcalc 192.168.42.0/27
>Addresses in network - 32
Yep. Maybe a /28 would be enough?
>sipcalc 192.168.42.0/28
>Addresses in network - 16
Nope. /27 it is.

If you need to know what /27s you can use in your /24
>sipcalc 192.168.42.0/24 -s 27

>Network - 192.168.42.0 - 192.168.42.31
>Network - 192.168.42.32 - 192.168.42.63
>Network - 192.168.42.64 - 192.168.42.95
>Network - 192.168.42.96 - 192.168.42.127
>Network - 192.168.42.128 - 192.168.42.159
>Network - 192.168.42.160 - 192.168.42.191
>Network - 192.168.42.192 - 192.168.42.223
>Network - 192.168.42.224 - 192.168.42.255

correct, network address translation uses ports/sockets to properly route an external ip address to various internal addresses

I'm confused, so is wrong?.

So, IPv6 elimiantes any and all issues regarding IPv4. The only reason why we even use IPv4 is because most of our infrastructure still relies on it.
I think places like Europe have completely moved their infrastructure to IPv6.

Looks like the same for me.

>Valid IPs are: 192.168.42.162 with a CIDR notation of /27
No idea what he meant with that tough.

I ment one possible valid IP address would be 192.168.42.162 /27

moving to ipv6 is most certainly the correct answer, but i'm more wondering that, as TCP/UDP both have different headers, we're able to have 65536 (65535?) sockets open for each of them, and yet more for ICMP etc
but if instead, we wound up using a channel

but there's room for more, right? that's a one byte header defining whether a piece of data is TCP/UDP/ICMP? so it would be possibly to add more and have TCP1/TCP2/TCP3 etc
very obviously switching to ipv6 is a better solution, but would there be something preventing this system from being adopted, besides hosts needing to adopt it?
because this should all be able to function with the infrastructure we have, so long as the hosts can agree how to handle the logic, right?

>One possible valid HOST IP address.

>but if instead, we wound up using a channel
ignore this line, i deleted part of it but not all of it
i rephrased what i wanted to say later

Holy shit user, that is quite the fucking question.

That's true but that wasn't the question i think.

it's still an extremely poor solution, because it would be super hard to cross the channels, but in the same way that we can load balance one ip to multiple servers, i really wonder if there would be a way to do TCP channels like that
i just don't have enough knowledge to know if it would be possible for someone with a unified software solution for every part of the process to handle

cause like google doesn't have a lot of respect for standards on how to do things, now with wireless they're arbitrarily making up mac addresses when connecting to public networks
so they could in theory, have their android protocols with some weird tcp channel exclusively for google based services, have their servers ready to accept them and have their phones ready to transmit to them
at least that's my thought, i don't know if there is anything that would be preventing this

Hey faggots, I know what PING stands for; Packet Internet Groper. Ping also uses ICMP protocol. I am the network pro in this thread.

C-can you grope my pockets user?

Better yet, I will grop your crouch. No homo
hehe EGGS DEE.

Dude, can you even speak English? Your posts make no sense at all, even if someone would like to code the entire thing for you, he wouldn't understand what you want.

And just calling faggot to someone while asking him to do something for you isn't very nice. You only have yourself to blame, think about your life choices.

>classless
Who the fuck uses IP classes now anyway? Are you maintaining networking gear old enough to be president?

>The only reason you'd need subnetting is
>What is layer 2

Lets see if memory serves me right, layer 2 is Data-Link. Which deals in frames, and MAC addresses.

Stupid OSI model.