IP Addresses and netmask

Hi

Can any kind IP person clear this up for me?

Our LAN uses addresses in the range 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.255 (its an NT4
domain).

What should the netmask be?
Currently its set as 255.255.0.0, I think it should be 255.255.255.0

Is it likely to cause trouble left as it is?

Thanks for the advice -

Regards
S W

The netmask defines how much of your IP address is the "network" portion
and how much is the "host" portion.

255.255.0.0 defines the first 16 bits as network. So your network address
portion is 128.66 . Just about any address starting with 128.66 would be OK.

255.255.255.0 would define 128.66.1 as your network address portion, and
only the addresses 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.254 would work . So if you want
to restrict the network to these values, this is the netmask to use.


"Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi
>
> Can any kind IP person clear this up for me?
>
> Our LAN uses addresses in the range 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.255 (its an NT4
> domain).
>
> What should the netmask be?
> Currently its set as 255.255.0.0, I think it should be 255.255.255.0
>
> Is it likely to cause trouble left as it is?
>
> Thanks for the advice -
>
> Regards
> S W
>

Thanks, Bill. But if I only need 255 addresses (i'm using much less) will I
speed things up or improve things at all by changing the mask to
255.255.255.0?
Or will it make no difference whatsoever!?!
Rgds
S

"Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The netmask defines how much of your IP address is the "network" portion
> and how much is the "host" portion.
>
> 255.255.0.0 defines the first 16 bits as network. So your network
> address portion is 128.66 . Just about any address starting with 128.66
> would be OK.
>
> 255.255.255.0 would define 128.66.1 as your network address portion,
> and only the addresses 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.254 would work . So if you
> want to restrict the network to these values, this is the netmask to use.
>
>
> "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi
>>
>> Can any kind IP person clear this up for me?
>>
>> Our LAN uses addresses in the range 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.255 (its an
>> NT4 domain).
>>
>> What should the netmask be?
>> Currently its set as 255.255.0.0, I think it should be 255.255.255.0
>>
>> Is it likely to cause trouble left as it is?
>>
>> Thanks for the advice -
>>
>> Regards
>> S W
>>
>
>

"Matthew" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have what amounts to a peer-to-peer network (I do have Win2000 Server,
> though) with DSL internet.
> I am thinking of adding a new computer and wanted to know if there was a
way
> to block it from accessing any of the other computer's shares while
allowing
> it to access the internet.
> Maybe have it in a different subnet with a network bridge?
>

As far as speed it is irrelevant. You will only get 254
addresses (so it is good you need less than 255.)

That last (x.y.z.255) is the broadcast address (all machines)
so cannot be used for any machine.

Btw, where did you get this address range? You cannot
just decide to use a 128 network address without it
being allocated by the owner (an ISP or NAP probably)
IF you ever wish to hook it to the Internet.

If you are making up addresses use one of these ranges:

192.168.x.y
172.16.x.y through 176.31.x.y
10.x.y.z

It would be very odd for a network needing less than 255
addresses to be allocated the entire 128.66.0.0 network
range.

If you were given a network by an ISP or other parent
authority they MUST supply you with the minimum
mask.

Minimum means that you can EXTEND the mask but
you cannot use less than they give you.

--
Herb Martin


"Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks, Bill. But if I only need 255 addresses (i'm using much less) will
I
> speed things up or improve things at all by changing the mask to
> 255.255.255.0?
> Or will it make no difference whatsoever!?!
> Rgds
> S
>
> "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > The netmask defines how much of your IP address is the "network"
portion
> > and how much is the "host" portion.
> >
> > 255.255.0.0 defines the first 16 bits as network. So your network
> > address portion is 128.66 . Just about any address starting with 128.66
> > would be OK.
> >
> > 255.255.255.0 would define 128.66.1 as your network address portion,
> > and only the addresses 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.254 would work . So if
you
> > want to restrict the network to these values, this is the netmask to
use.
> >
> >
> > "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Can any kind IP person clear this up for me?
> >>
> >> Our LAN uses addresses in the range 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.255 (its an
> >> NT4 domain).
> >>
> >> What should the netmask be?
> >> Currently its set as 255.255.0.0, I think it should be 255.255.255.0
> >>
> >> Is it likely to cause trouble left as it is?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the advice -
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> S W
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

I've inherited the network from the previous manager. I (obviously) am not a
network expert, but thought that the addresses looked unusual. I very much
doubt if they've been allocated by an ISP. Our network is not connected to
the Internet except via a router/gateway for browsing and email.
Will I need to change this address range when I upgrade from NT4 to server
2003? Or can I just change it now?

Thanks.
S
"Herb Martin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Matthew" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I have what amounts to a peer-to-peer network (I do have Win2000 Server,
>> though) with DSL internet.
>> I am thinking of adding a new computer and wanted to know if there was a
> way
>> to block it from accessing any of the other computer's shares while
> allowing
>> it to access the internet.
>> Maybe have it in a different subnet with a network bridge?
>>
>
> As far as speed it is irrelevant. You will only get 254
> addresses (so it is good you need less than 255.)
>
> That last (x.y.z.255) is the broadcast address (all machines)
> so cannot be used for any machine.
>
> Btw, where did you get this address range? You cannot
> just decide to use a 128 network address without it
> being allocated by the owner (an ISP or NAP probably)
> IF you ever wish to hook it to the Internet.
>
> If you are making up addresses use one of these ranges:
>
> 192.168.x.y
> 172.16.x.y through 176.31.x.y
> 10.x.y.z
>
> It would be very odd for a network needing less than 255
> addresses to be allocated the entire 128.66.0.0 network
> range.
>
> If you were given a network by an ISP or other parent
> authority they MUST supply you with the minimum
> mask.
>
> Minimum means that you can EXTEND the mask but
> you cannot use less than they give you.
>
> --
> Herb Martin
>
>
> "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Thanks, Bill. But if I only need 255 addresses (i'm using much less) will
> I
>> speed things up or improve things at all by changing the mask to
>> 255.255.255.0?
>> Or will it make no difference whatsoever!?!
>> Rgds
>> S
>>
>> "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > The netmask defines how much of your IP address is the "network"
> portion
>> > and how much is the "host" portion.
>> >
>> > 255.255.0.0 defines the first 16 bits as network. So your network
>> > address portion is 128.66 . Just about any address starting with 128.66
>> > would be OK.
>> >
>> > 255.255.255.0 would define 128.66.1 as your network address portion,
>> > and only the addresses 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.254 would work . So if
> you
>> > want to restrict the network to these values, this is the netmask to
> use.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
>> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> Can any kind IP person clear this up for me?
>> >>
>> >> Our LAN uses addresses in the range 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.255 (its an
>> >> NT4 domain).
>> >>
>> >> What should the netmask be?
>> >> Currently its set as 255.255.0.0, I think it should be 255.255.255.0
>> >>
>> >> Is it likely to cause trouble left as it is?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the advice -
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> S W
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

"Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> I've inherited the network from the previous manager. I (obviously) am not
a
> network expert, but thought that the addresses looked unusual. I very much
> doubt if they've been allocated by an ISP.

You have been allocated SOME addresses from the ISP
or otherwise (see next) web access and email would not
work.

> Our network is not connected to
> the Internet except via a router/gateway for browsing and email.

That is "connected to the Internet".


> Will I need to change this address range when I upgrade from NT4 to server
> 2003? Or can I just change it now?

If it is incorrectly assigned (seems likely) then you should
change it now, whether you upgrade or not.

Your users can never contact any network with those addresses
(if any real sites exist) and you router email servers would be
confused about delivering mail, etc., to those same addresses.

[And it is just wrong to leave it that way <grin>]

If you don't have reason to pick your own address, just change
all of the 128's in the first octet to 10s.

There are other choices but that is the least typing.

Presumable your Internet gateway/router is already translating
the addresses (or your could not use the Internet for web and
email.)

If you get confused you can call me -- my phone numbers are
on my web site: LearnQuick.Com

--
Herb Martin


>
> Thanks.
> S
> "Herb Martin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Matthew" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> I have what amounts to a peer-to-peer network (I do have Win2000
Server,
> >> though) with DSL internet.
> >> I am thinking of adding a new computer and wanted to know if there was
a
> > way
> >> to block it from accessing any of the other computer's shares while
> > allowing
> >> it to access the internet.
> >> Maybe have it in a different subnet with a network bridge?
> >>
> >
> > As far as speed it is irrelevant. You will only get 254
> > addresses (so it is good you need less than 255.)
> >
> > That last (x.y.z.255) is the broadcast address (all machines)
> > so cannot be used for any machine.
> >
> > Btw, where did you get this address range? You cannot
> > just decide to use a 128 network address without it
> > being allocated by the owner (an ISP or NAP probably)
> > IF you ever wish to hook it to the Internet.
> >
> > If you are making up addresses use one of these ranges:
> >
> > 192.168.x.y
> > 172.16.x.y through 176.31.x.y
> > 10.x.y.z
> >
> > It would be very odd for a network needing less than 255
> > addresses to be allocated the entire 128.66.0.0 network
> > range.
> >
> > If you were given a network by an ISP or other parent
> > authority they MUST supply you with the minimum
> > mask.
> >
> > Minimum means that you can EXTEND the mask but
> > you cannot use less than they give you.
> >
> > --
> > Herb Martin
> >
> >
> > "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Thanks, Bill. But if I only need 255 addresses (i'm using much less)
will
> > I
> >> speed things up or improve things at all by changing the mask to
> >> 255.255.255.0?
> >> Or will it make no difference whatsoever!?!
> >> Rgds
> >> S
> >>
> >> "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > The netmask defines how much of your IP address is the "network"
> > portion
> >> > and how much is the "host" portion.
> >> >
> >> > 255.255.0.0 defines the first 16 bits as network. So your network
> >> > address portion is 128.66 . Just about any address starting with
128.66
> >> > would be OK.
> >> >
> >> > 255.255.255.0 would define 128.66.1 as your network address
portion,
> >> > and only the addresses 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.254 would work . So
if
> > you
> >> > want to restrict the network to these values, this is the netmask to
> > use.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
> >> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >> Hi
> >> >>
> >> >> Can any kind IP person clear this up for me?
> >> >>
> >> >> Our LAN uses addresses in the range 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.255 (its
an
> >> >> NT4 domain).
> >> >>
> >> >> What should the netmask be?
> >> >> Currently its set as 255.255.0.0, I think it should be 255.255.255.0
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it likely to cause trouble left as it is?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for the advice -
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards
> >> >> S W
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Herb

I appreciate the help - thanks a lot. However, I have quite a few devices
with static addresses, I'll have to get third parties informed, etc. Its a
big job, But it will be a good exercise to get completed. I am thinking that
I may encounter problems with WINS. Is there a way to flush out the WINS
database and rebuild it when the addresses are changed? Or should that
happen automatically?

Regards

SW
"Herb Martin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
> news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I've inherited the network from the previous manager. I (obviously) am
>> not
> a
>> network expert, but thought that the addresses looked unusual. I very
>> much
>> doubt if they've been allocated by an ISP.
>
> You have been allocated SOME addresses from the ISP
> or otherwise (see next) web access and email would not
> work.
>
>> Our network is not connected to
>> the Internet except via a router/gateway for browsing and email.
>
> That is "connected to the Internet".
>
>
>> Will I need to change this address range when I upgrade from NT4 to
>> server
>> 2003? Or can I just change it now?
>
> If it is incorrectly assigned (seems likely) then you should
> change it now, whether you upgrade or not.
>
> Your users can never contact any network with those addresses
> (if any real sites exist) and you router email servers would be
> confused about delivering mail, etc., to those same addresses.
>
> [And it is just wrong to leave it that way <grin>]
>
> If you don't have reason to pick your own address, just change
> all of the 128's in the first octet to 10s.
>
> There are other choices but that is the least typing.
>
> Presumable your Internet gateway/router is already translating
> the addresses (or your could not use the Internet for web and
> email.)
>
> If you get confused you can call me -- my phone numbers are
> on my web site: LearnQuick.Com
>
> --
> Herb Martin
>
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>> S
>> "Herb Martin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > "Matthew" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> I have what amounts to a peer-to-peer network (I do have Win2000
> Server,
>> >> though) with DSL internet.
>> >> I am thinking of adding a new computer and wanted to know if there was
> a
>> > way
>> >> to block it from accessing any of the other computer's shares while
>> > allowing
>> >> it to access the internet.
>> >> Maybe have it in a different subnet with a network bridge?
>> >>
>> >
>> > As far as speed it is irrelevant. You will only get 254
>> > addresses (so it is good you need less than 255.)
>> >
>> > That last (x.y.z.255) is the broadcast address (all machines)
>> > so cannot be used for any machine.
>> >
>> > Btw, where did you get this address range? You cannot
>> > just decide to use a 128 network address without it
>> > being allocated by the owner (an ISP or NAP probably)
>> > IF you ever wish to hook it to the Internet.
>> >
>> > If you are making up addresses use one of these ranges:
>> >
>> > 192.168.x.y
>> > 172.16.x.y through 176.31.x.y
>> > 10.x.y.z
>> >
>> > It would be very odd for a network needing less than 255
>> > addresses to be allocated the entire 128.66.0.0 network
>> > range.
>> >
>> > If you were given a network by an ISP or other parent
>> > authority they MUST supply you with the minimum
>> > mask.
>> >
>> > Minimum means that you can EXTEND the mask but
>> > you cannot use less than they give you.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Herb Martin
>> >
>> >
>> > "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
>> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> Thanks, Bill. But if I only need 255 addresses (i'm using much less)
> will
>> > I
>> >> speed things up or improve things at all by changing the mask to
>> >> 255.255.255.0?
>> >> Or will it make no difference whatsoever!?!
>> >> Rgds
>> >> S
>> >>
>> >> "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
>> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> > The netmask defines how much of your IP address is the "network"
>> > portion
>> >> > and how much is the "host" portion.
>> >> >
>> >> > 255.255.0.0 defines the first 16 bits as network. So your network
>> >> > address portion is 128.66 . Just about any address starting with
> 128.66
>> >> > would be OK.
>> >> >
>> >> > 255.255.255.0 would define 128.66.1 as your network address
> portion,
>> >> > and only the addresses 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.254 would work . So
> if
>> > you
>> >> > want to restrict the network to these values, this is the netmask to
>> > use.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
>> >> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> >> Hi
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can any kind IP person clear this up for me?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Our LAN uses addresses in the range 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.255 (its
> an
>> >> >> NT4 domain).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What should the netmask be?
>> >> >> Currently its set as 255.255.0.0, I think it should be
>> >> >> 255.255.255.0
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is it likely to cause trouble left as it is?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for the advice -
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards
>> >> >> S W
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

"Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> I've inherited the network from the previous manager. I (obviously) am not
a
> network expert, but thought that the addresses looked unusual. I very much
> doubt if they've been allocated by an ISP. Our network is not connected to
> the Internet except via a router/gateway for browsing and email.

Then it *is* connected to the Network. At best it means that you will never
be able to access any Internet Sites that happen to begin with 128.66.1.*
because your system will improperly interpret it as being local on your LAN
and will not attempt to traverse the Internet.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

The "quick and dirty" way is to just clear out all the WINS entries in the
WINS database. It will repopulate with new entries after the machines
startup the first time.

I think DNS will take care of itself without bothering it, but you could use
the same method with it, but I wouldn't bother the entries for the Domain
Controllers and DNS machines. Only do that with workstations and member
servers. It,... just like with WINS, ...will repopulate with fresh entries
when the machines are started up if you are running it as Dynamic DNS.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com


"Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks for your help, Philip. I now have the job of changing it. I have a
> question about WINS, as I am now not sure how to go about updating WINS
when
> I change the IP addresses.

"Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Herb
>
> I appreciate the help - thanks a lot. However, I have quite a few devices
> with static addresses, I'll have to get third parties informed, etc. Its a
> big job, But it will be a good exercise to get completed. I am thinking
that
> I may encounter problems with WINS. Is there a way to flush out the WINS
> database and rebuild it when the addresses are changed? Or should that
> happen automatically?

Both are true. You can flush out the database but the updates
should just work as soon as you change the client addresses
and/or the client settings for WINS servers.

--
Herb Martin


>
> Regards
>
> SW
> "Herb Martin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
> > news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> I've inherited the network from the previous manager. I (obviously) am
> >> not
> > a
> >> network expert, but thought that the addresses looked unusual. I very
> >> much
> >> doubt if they've been allocated by an ISP.
> >
> > You have been allocated SOME addresses from the ISP
> > or otherwise (see next) web access and email would not
> > work.
> >
> >> Our network is not connected to
> >> the Internet except via a router/gateway for browsing and email.
> >
> > That is "connected to the Internet".
> >
> >
> >> Will I need to change this address range when I upgrade from NT4 to
> >> server
> >> 2003? Or can I just change it now?
> >
> > If it is incorrectly assigned (seems likely) then you should
> > change it now, whether you upgrade or not.
> >
> > Your users can never contact any network with those addresses
> > (if any real sites exist) and you router email servers would be
> > confused about delivering mail, etc., to those same addresses.
> >
> > [And it is just wrong to leave it that way <grin>]
> >
> > If you don't have reason to pick your own address, just change
> > all of the 128's in the first octet to 10s.
> >
> > There are other choices but that is the least typing.
> >
> > Presumable your Internet gateway/router is already translating
> > the addresses (or your could not use the Internet for web and
> > email.)
> >
> > If you get confused you can call me -- my phone numbers are
> > on my web site: LearnQuick.Com
> >
> > --
> > Herb Martin
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >> S
> >> "Herb Martin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > "Matthew" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> > news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >> I have what amounts to a peer-to-peer network (I do have Win2000
> > Server,
> >> >> though) with DSL internet.
> >> >> I am thinking of adding a new computer and wanted to know if there
was
> > a
> >> > way
> >> >> to block it from accessing any of the other computer's shares while
> >> > allowing
> >> >> it to access the internet.
> >> >> Maybe have it in a different subnet with a network bridge?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > As far as speed it is irrelevant. You will only get 254
> >> > addresses (so it is good you need less than 255.)
> >> >
> >> > That last (x.y.z.255) is the broadcast address (all machines)
> >> > so cannot be used for any machine.
> >> >
> >> > Btw, where did you get this address range? You cannot
> >> > just decide to use a 128 network address without it
> >> > being allocated by the owner (an ISP or NAP probably)
> >> > IF you ever wish to hook it to the Internet.
> >> >
> >> > If you are making up addresses use one of these ranges:
> >> >
> >> > 192.168.x.y
> >> > 172.16.x.y through 176.31.x.y
> >> > 10.x.y.z
> >> >
> >> > It would be very odd for a network needing less than 255
> >> > addresses to be allocated the entire 128.66.0.0 network
> >> > range.
> >> >
> >> > If you were given a network by an ISP or other parent
> >> > authority they MUST supply you with the minimum
> >> > mask.
> >> >
> >> > Minimum means that you can EXTEND the mask but
> >> > you cannot use less than they give you.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Herb Martin
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
> >> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >> Thanks, Bill. But if I only need 255 addresses (i'm using much less)
> > will
> >> > I
> >> >> speed things up or improve things at all by changing the mask to
> >> >> 255.255.255.0?
> >> >> Or will it make no difference whatsoever!?!
> >> >> Rgds
> >> >> S
> >> >>
> >> >> "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
> >> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >> > The netmask defines how much of your IP address is the "network"
> >> > portion
> >> >> > and how much is the "host" portion.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 255.255.0.0 defines the first 16 bits as network. So your
network
> >> >> > address portion is 128.66 . Just about any address starting with
> > 128.66
> >> >> > would be OK.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 255.255.255.0 would define 128.66.1 as your network address
> > portion,
> >> >> > and only the addresses 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.254 would work .
So
> > if
> >> > you
> >> >> > want to restrict the network to these values, this is the netmask
to
> >> > use.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Steve W" <antispamsteveW@=No-Spam=.org> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> >> >> Hi
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Can any kind IP person clear this up for me?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Our LAN uses addresses in the range 128.66.1.1 to 128.66.1.255
(its
> > an
> >> >> >> NT4 domain).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What should the netmask be?
> >> >> >> Currently its set as 255.255.0.0, I think it should be
> >> >> >> 255.255.255.0
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is it likely to cause trouble left as it is?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks for the advice -
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Regards
> >> >> >> S W
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>