|
Home > Archive > microsoft.public.cert.exams.mcse > February 2003 > Trascender mistakes
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Trascender mistakes
|
|
| borsky 2003-02-14, 3:23 pm |
| Hi
Here are some of the answers/explanation I read in
Transcender and think they are not correct. What do you
think?
1. "...DNS servers cannot resolve single-part names to IP
addresses"
(single-part: I have never seen this expression before it
might refer to single label, unqualified names.)
I also found two incorrect answers about subnetting one of
wich has been corrected. The other one is this:
Question A24: you plan to set up 4 subnets with up to 20
host on each. You'll use 192.168.0.0/24 private addr.
Which subnet mask should you assign?
a. 255.255.255.192
b. 255.255.255.224
My answer is a.
Now, to create 4 subnets we need 2 bits (2^2=4 and we
don't have to subtract 2.We only do that when calculating
the total number of hosts on a subnet) With 2 bits we
create the following 4 subnets
192.160.0.0
0.64
0.128
0.192
Transcender's suggestion is b.
What is yours?
Source: Trancender 70-218 question A24 and A52
| |
| Simone 2003-02-14, 4:23 pm |
| Well, it's B.
192.168.0.0
255.255.255.224
Subnets Bits 3
Effective hosts 30
Effective subnets 6
192.160.0.32
64
96
128
160
192
With A you have only 2 subnets and 62 hosts
192.160.0.64
192.160.0.128
Have a nice day.
Simone
"borsky" <gabor@beke.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:016b01c2d46a$7af8e8f0$a40
1280a@phx.gbl...
> Hi
>
> Here are some of the answers/explanation I read in
> Transcender and think they are not correct. What do you
> think?
>
> 1. "...DNS servers cannot resolve single-part names to IP
> addresses"
>
> (single-part: I have never seen this expression before it
> might refer to single label, unqualified names.)
>
>
> I also found two incorrect answers about subnetting one of
> wich has been corrected. The other one is this:
> Question A24: you plan to set up 4 subnets with up to 20
> host on each. You'll use 192.168.0.0/24 private addr.
> Which subnet mask should you assign?
> a. 255.255.255.192
> b. 255.255.255.224
>
>
> My answer is a.
> Now, to create 4 subnets we need 2 bits (2^2=4 and we
> don't have to subtract 2.We only do that when calculating
> the total number of hosts on a subnet) With 2 bits we
> create the following 4 subnets
> 192.160.0.0
> 0.64
> 0.128
> 0.192
>
> Transcender's suggestion is b.
> What is yours?
> Source: Trancender 70-218 question A24 and A52
| |
| Politician Spock 2003-02-14, 4:23 pm |
| The determining factor is the "up to 20 hosts on each". No subnet needs 62
available nodes, so why give it a subnet mask with 62 nodes.
--
Politician Spock
MCSA, CCEA, MCNGP #15
The MCNGP Team - We're here to help
"borsky" <gabor@beke.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:016b01c2d46a$7af8e8f0$a40
1280a@phx.gbl...
> Hi
>
> Here are some of the answers/explanation I read in
> Transcender and think they are not correct. What do you
> think?
>
> 1. "...DNS servers cannot resolve single-part names to IP
> addresses"
>
> (single-part: I have never seen this expression before it
> might refer to single label, unqualified names.)
>
>
> I also found two incorrect answers about subnetting one of
> wich has been corrected. The other one is this:
> Question A24: you plan to set up 4 subnets with up to 20
> host on each. You'll use 192.168.0.0/24 private addr.
> Which subnet mask should you assign?
> a. 255.255.255.192
> b. 255.255.255.224
>
>
> My answer is a.
> Now, to create 4 subnets we need 2 bits (2^2=4 and we
> don't have to subtract 2.We only do that when calculating
> the total number of hosts on a subnet) With 2 bits we
> create the following 4 subnets
> 192.160.0.0
> 0.64
> 0.128
> 0.192
>
> Transcender's suggestion is b.
> What is yours?
> Source: Trancender 70-218 question A24 and A52
| |
| Simon Geary 2003-02-14, 4:23 pm |
|
"borsky" <gabor@beke.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:016b01c2d46a$7af8e8f0$a40
1280a@phx.gbl...
> Hi
>
> Here are some of the answers/explanation I read in
> Transcender and think they are not correct. What do you
> think?
>
> 1. "...DNS servers cannot resolve single-part names to IP
> addresses"
>
> (single-part: I have never seen this expression before it
> might refer to single label, unqualified names.)
>
>
> I also found two incorrect answers about subnetting one of
> wich has been corrected. The other one is this:
> Question A24: you plan to set up 4 subnets with up to 20
> host on each. You'll use 192.168.0.0/24 private addr.
> Which subnet mask should you assign?
> a. 255.255.255.192
> b. 255.255.255.224
>
>
> My answer is a.
> Now, to create 4 subnets we need 2 bits (2^2=4 and we
> don't have to subtract 2.We only do that when calculating
> the total number of hosts on a subnet) With 2 bits we
> create the following 4 subnets
> 192.160.0.0
> 0.64
> 0.128
> 0.192
>
> Transcender's suggestion is b.
> What is yours?
> Source: Trancender 70-218 question A24 and A52
The subnet answer must be B. A only allows two subnets and you need 4. With
a given IP range of 192.168.0.0/24 that kind of implies the answer should be
255.255.255.0 but thats Transcenders for you.
A single part DNS name is one without the dots. e.g. if the DNS name is
server1.company.com, the single part name would be server1
You enter single part names when entering A records in DNS, among other
things.
| |
| borsky 2003-02-14, 8:23 pm |
| There is a big misunderstanding about this and I noticed
that even some books are wrong about it (e.g.New Riders)
It is clear why we have to subtract 2 when calculating
host numbers. It is because the host ID can't have all 0's
and 1's. All 0's on the host ID equals the network ID (Net
ID:192.168.1.0/24 where the first possible host ID is
192.168.1.1) and all 1's on the host ID is the loopback
address of the (sub)network.
Now please tell why should you subtract to when
calculating the network ID?
E.g you need 2 subnets, you borrow 1 bit. 192.168.0.0 is
the Network addr. Two subnets will be: 192.168.0.0/25
(where the first host is 192.168.0.1 the last is 0.127)
and 192.168.0.128/25 (where the first host is
192.168.0.129 and the last is 0.255)
Satisfactory?
>-----Original Message-----
>
>"borsky" <gabor@beke.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:016b01c2d46a$7af8e8f0$a40
1280a@phx.gbl...
>> Hi
>>
>> Here are some of the answers/explanation I read in
>> Transcender and think they are not correct. What do you
>> think?
>>
>> 1. "...DNS servers cannot resolve single-part names to
IP
>> addresses"
>>
>> (single-part: I have never seen this expression before
it
>> might refer to single label, unqualified names.)
>>
>>
>> I also found two incorrect answers about subnetting one
of
>> wich has been corrected. The other one is this:
>> Question A24: you plan to set up 4 subnets with up to 20
>> host on each. You'll use 192.168.0.0/24 private addr.
>> Which subnet mask should you assign?
>> a. 255.255.255.192
>> b. 255.255.255.224
>>
>>
>> My answer is a.
>> Now, to create 4 subnets we need 2 bits (2^2=4 and we
>> don't have to subtract 2.We only do that when
calculating
>> the total number of hosts on a subnet) With 2 bits we
>> create the following 4 subnets
>> 192.160.0.0
>> 0.64
>> 0.128
>> 0.192
>>
>> Transcender's suggestion is b.
>> What is yours?
>> Source: Trancender 70-218 question A24 and A52
>
>The subnet answer must be B. A only allows two subnets
and you need 4. With
>a given IP range of 192.168.0.0/24 that kind of implies
the answer should be
>255.255.255.0 but thats Transcenders for you.
>
>A single part DNS name is one without the dots. e.g. if
the DNS name is
>server1.company.com, the single part name would be server1
>You enter single part names when entering A records in
DNS, among other
>things.
>
>
>.
>
| |
| borsky 2003-02-14, 8:23 pm |
|
>-----Original Message-----
>There is a big misunderstanding about this and I noticed
>that even some books are wrong about it (e.g.New Riders)
>It is clear why we have to subtract 2 when calculating
>host numbers. It is because the host ID can't have all
0's
>and 1's. All 0's on the host ID equals the network ID
(Net
>ID:192.168.1.0/24 where the first possible host ID is
>192.168.1.1) and all 1's on the host ID is the loopback
>address of the (sub)network.
>Now please tell why should you subtract to when
>calculating the network ID?
>E.g you need 2 subnets, you borrow 1 bit. 192.168.0.0 is
>the Network addr. Two subnets will be: 192.168.0.0/25
>(where the first host is 192.168.0.1 the last is 0.127)
>and 192.168.0.128/25 (where the first host is
>192.168.0.129 and the last is 0.255)
>Satisfactory?
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>
>>"borsky" <gabor@beke.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:016b01c2d46a$7af8e8f0$a40
1280a@phx.gbl...
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Here are some of the answers/explanation I read in
>>> Transcender and think they are not correct. What do you
>>> think?
>>>
>>> 1. "...DNS servers cannot resolve single-part names to
> IP
>>> addresses"
>>>
>>> (single-part: I have never seen this expression before
> it
>>> might refer to single label, unqualified names.)
>>>
>>>
>>> I also found two incorrect answers about subnetting
one
> of
>>> wich has been corrected. The other one is this:
>>> Question A24: you plan to set up 4 subnets with up to
20[co
lor=darkred]
>>> host on each. You'll use 192.168.0.0/24 private addr.
>>> Which subnet mask should you assign?
>>> a. 255.255.255.192
>>> b. 255.255.255.224
>>>
>>>
>>> My answer is a.
>>> Now, to create 4 subnets we need 2 bits (2^2=4 and we
>>> don't have to subtract 2.We only do that when
> calculating[color
=darkred]
>>> the total number of hosts on a subnet) With 2 bits we
>>> create the following 4 subnets
>>> 192.160.0.0
>>> 0.64
>>> 0.128
>>> 0.192
>>>
>>> Transcender's suggestion is b.
>>> What is yours?
>>> Source: Trancender 70-218 question A24 and A52
>>
>>The subnet answer must be B. A only allows two subnets[/color]
>and you need 4. With
>>a given IP range of 192.168.0.0/24 that kind of implies
>the answer should be
>>255.255.255.0 but thats Transcenders for you.
>>
>>A single part DNS name is one without the dots. e.g. if
>the DNS name is
>>server1.company.com, the single part name would be[/color]
server1
>>You enter single part names when entering A records in
>DNS, among other
>>things.
>>
>>
>>.
>>
>.
>
| |
| Simon Geary 2003-02-15, 2:23 am |
| You subtract 2 when calculating the network ID because the first address in
a scope is the network ID and the last one is the broadcast address.
I am lazy and used a subnet calculator to work out the answer so I can't
tell you the working out.
Have a look at www.learn2subnet.com
"borsky" <gabor@beke.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:024801c2d492$46776a20$a50
1280a@phx.gbl...
> There is a big misunderstanding about this and I noticed
> that even some books are wrong about it (e.g.New Riders)
> It is clear why we have to subtract 2 when calculating
> host numbers. It is because the host ID can't have all 0's
> and 1's. All 0's on the host ID equals the network ID (Net
> ID:192.168.1.0/24 where the first possible host ID is
> 192.168.1.1) and all 1's on the host ID is the loopback
> address of the (sub)network.
> Now please tell why should you subtract to when
> calculating the network ID?
> E.g you need 2 subnets, you borrow 1 bit. 192.168.0.0 is
> the Network addr. Two subnets will be: 192.168.0.0/25
> (where the first host is 192.168.0.1 the last is 0.127)
> and 192.168.0.128/25 (where the first host is
> 192.168.0.129 and the last is 0.255)
> Satisfactory?
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >
> >"borsky" <gabor@beke.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:016b01c2d46a$7af8e8f0$a40
1280a@phx.gbl...
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Here are some of the answers/explanation I read in
> >> Transcender and think they are not correct. What do you
> >> think?
> >>
> >> 1. "...DNS servers cannot resolve single-part names to
> IP
> >> addresses"
> >>
> >> (single-part: I have never seen this expression before
> it
> >> might refer to single label, unqualified names.)
> >>
> >>
> >> I also found two incorrect answers about subnetting one
> of
> >> wich has been corrected. The other one is this:
> >> Question A24: you plan to set up 4 subnets with up to 20
> >> host on each. You'll use 192.168.0.0/24 private addr.
> >> Which subnet mask should you assign?
> >> a. 255.255.255.192
> >> b. 255.255.255.224
> >>
> >>
> >> My answer is a.
> >> Now, to create 4 subnets we need 2 bits (2^2=4 and we
> >> don't have to subtract 2.We only do that when
> calculating[color
=darkred]
> >> the total number of hosts on a subnet) With 2 bits we
> >> create the following 4 subnets
> >> 192.160.0.0
> >> 0.64
> >> 0.128
> >> 0.192
> >>
> >> Transcender's suggestion is b.
> >> What is yours?
> >> Source: Trancender 70-218 question A24 and A52
> >
> >The subnet answer must be B. A only allows two subnets
> and you need 4. With
> >a given IP range of 192.168.0.0/24 that kind of implies
> the answer should be
> >255.255.255.0 but thats Transcenders for you.
> >
> >A single part DNS name is one without the dots. e.g. if
> the DNS name is
> >server1.company.com, the single part name would be server1
> >You enter single part names when entering A records in
> DNS, among other
> >things.
> >
> >
> >.
> >[/color]
| |
| billyw 2003-02-15, 4:23 am |
| a good way to learn subnetting is from the sybex ccna book..
least it has worked for me
"Simon Geary" <simon_geary@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ep3qgYM1CHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP09...
> You subtract 2 when calculating the network ID because the first address
in
> a scope is the network ID and the last one is the broadcast address.
>
> I am lazy and used a subnet calculator to work out the answer so I can't
> tell you the working out.
> Have a look at www.learn2subnet.com
>
> "borsky" <gabor@beke.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:024801c2d492$46776a20$a50
1280a@phx.gbl...
> > There is a big misunderstanding about this and I noticed
> > that even some books are wrong about it (e.g.New Riders)
> > It is clear why we have to subtract 2 when calculating
> > host numbers. It is because the host ID can't have all 0's
> > and 1's. All 0's on the host ID equals the network ID (Net
> > ID:192.168.1.0/24 where the first possible host ID is
> > 192.168.1.1) and all 1's on the host ID is the loopback
> > address of the (sub)network.
> > Now please tell why should you subtract to when
> > calculating the network ID?
> > E.g you need 2 subnets, you borrow 1 bit. 192.168.0.0 is
> > the Network addr. Two subnets will be: 192.168.0.0/25
> > (where the first host is 192.168.0.1 the last is 0.127)
> > and 192.168.0.128/25 (where the first host is
> > 192.168.0.129 and the last is 0.255)
> > Satisfactory?
> >
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >"borsky" <gabor@beke.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:016b01c2d46a$7af8e8f0$a40
1280a@phx.gbl...
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> Here are some of the answers/explanation I read in
> > >> Transcender and think they are not correct. What do you
> > >> think?
> > >>
> > >> 1. "...DNS servers cannot resolve single-part names to
> > IP
> > >> addresses"
> > >>
> > >> (single-part: I have never seen this expression before
> > it
> > >> might refer to single label, unqualified names.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I also found two incorrect answers about subnetting one
> > of
> > >> wich has been corrected. The other one is this:
> > >> Question A24: you plan to set up 4 subnets with up to 20
> > >> host on each. You'll use 192.168.0.0/24 private addr.
> > >> Which subnet mask should you assign?
> > >> a. 255.255.255.192
> > >> b. 255.255.255.224
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> My answer is a.
> > >> Now, to create 4 subnets we need 2 bits (2^2=4 and we
> > >> don't have to subtract 2.We only do that when
> > calculating
> > >> the total number of hosts on a subnet) With 2 bits we
> > >> create the following 4 subnets
> > >> 192.160.0.0
> > >> 0.64
> > >> 0.128
> > >> 0.192
> > >>
> > >> Transcender's suggestion is b.
> > >> What is yours?
> > >> Source: Trancender 70-218 question A24 and A52
> > >
> > >The subnet answer must be B. A only allows two subnets
> > and you need 4. With
> > >a given IP range of 192.168.0.0/24 that kind of implies
> > the answer should be
> > >255.255.255.0 but thats Transcenders for you.
> > >
> > >A single part DNS name is one without the dots. e.g. if
> > the DNS name is
> > >server1.company.com, the single part name would be server1
> > >You enter single part names when entering A records in
> > DNS, among other
> > >things.
> > >
> > >
> > >.
> > >
>
>
| |
| Andy Foster 2003-02-15, 12:23 pm |
| "borsky" <gabor@beke.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message news:< 016b01c2d46a$7af8e8f0$a401280a
@phx.gbl>...
> Hi
>
> Here are some of the answers/explanation I read in
> Transcender and think they are not correct. What do you
> think?
>
<snip>
> I also found two incorrect answers about subnetting one of
> wich has been corrected. The other one is this:
> Question A24: you plan to set up 4 subnets with up to 20
> host on each. You'll use 192.168.0.0/24 private addr.
> Which subnet mask should you assign?
> a. 255.255.255.192
> b. 255.255.255.224
>
>
> My answer is a.
> Now, to create 4 subnets we need 2 bits (2^2=4 and we
> don't have to subtract 2.We only do that when calculating
> the total number of hosts on a subnet) With 2 bits we
> create the following 4 subnets
> 192.160.0.0
> 0.64
> 0.128
> 0.192
>
> Transcender's suggestion is b.
> What is yours?
> Source: Trancender 70-218 question A24 and A52
Firstly, stop taking the drugs. Your subject header was
"Trascender(sic) mistakes", clearly pointing out that they are (in
this occaision at least) wrong. Despite your understandable
confidence, and superior knowledge, you for some unfathomable reason
feel the need to ask other what the correct answers are, and by
impliation, why.
I see that you have conceeded that Transcender's answer wasn't
intended (on their part) to be definitive, merely a suggestion, but
would have hoped that you would have been kind enough to give us all
the benefit of your superior intellect regarding the subnetting
question that you have already corrected.
As regards A24, if you took the trouble to read up on subnetting on
Microsoft's web site (I'm sure someone here can at least give you the
URL of their homepage if you can't find it by yourself), you'd know
that Microsoft used to believe in nobbling the first and last subnets
(actually acknowledged that some admins used to do it that way -
Microsoft were never wrong themselves...), but now say it is
unnecessary.
In short - under the 'old system' b. was the only possible answer, but
under the 'new system' both a. and b. are possible.
You are very unlikely to get a Microsoft question asking which one
will work when there are two 'correct' answers (Ben Smith might be
able to confirm ths...)
However, the question didn't ask which one of the following would
acheive the required obective, it asked what you *should* do.
Microsoft's 'best practice', is to allow for more subnets if you have
spare bits, and the number of hosts required per subnet is not
expected to exceed the allocation.
HTH
Andy
| |
| Simon Geary 2003-02-15, 4:23 pm |
| Tee hee. Another fool who slags off people for spelling mistakes in posts
and makes some of their own during the rant.
Andy, can you spot your own spelling whopper in here, and would you
therefore care to eat some humble pie for insulting poor borsky for spelling
Transcender wrong?
> Firstly, stop taking the drugs. Your subject header was
> "Trascender(sic) mistakes", clearly pointing out that they are (in
> this occaision at least) wrong. Despite your understandable
> confidence, and superior knowledge, you for some unfathomable reason
> feel the need to ask other what the correct answers are, and by
> impliation, why.
> I see that you have conceeded that Transcender's answer wasn't
> intended (on their part) to be definitive, merely a suggestion, but
> would have hoped that you would have been kind enough to give us all
> the benefit of your superior intellect regarding the subnetting
> question that you have already corrected.
>
> As regards A24, if you took the trouble to read up on subnetting on
> Microsoft's web site (I'm sure someone here can at least give you the
> URL of their homepage if you can't find it by yourself), you'd know
> that Microsoft used to believe in nobbling the first and last subnets
> (actually acknowledged that some admins used to do it that way -
> Microsoft were never wrong themselves...), but now say it is
> unnecessary.
>
> In short - under the 'old system' b. was the only possible answer, but
> under the 'new system' both a. and b. are possible.
> You are very unlikely to get a Microsoft question asking which one
> will work when there are two 'correct' answers (Ben Smith might be
> able to confirm ths...)
>
> However, the question didn't ask which one of the following would
> acheive the required obective, it asked what you *should* do.
> Microsoft's 'best practice', is to allow for more subnets if you have
> spare bits, and the number of hosts required per subnet is not
> expected to exceed the allocation.
>
> HTH
>
> Andy
|
|
|
|
|