Chapter 7

Have-A-Seat

1. I would recommend the use of private addressing by Have-A-Seat. They can use them whether or not they connect to the Internet, so that is not an issue. Deployment will be simpler, as there is no application or delay process involved in using private addresses. I would also recommend the use of NAT, but only if they connect to the Internet. If they do not connect to the Internet, there is little advantage to running NAT internally.

   

   This graphic, showing a high-level topology map with IP addresses, assumes the use of private addressing using 172.16.0.0 and subnetting using 255.255.255.0 as a subnet mask. There is plenty of address space left for future growth both at the remote locations as well as across the entire enterprise.

2. Given the size of their network and their use of private addressing, there would appear to be little advantage in using route summarization. However, you may notice that the IP addressing scheme proposed would support route summarization should significant changes be made in the future.

   

   You will need to make sure that you enable IP forwarding on all routers, so that the remote workstation’s broadcasts of DHCP requests will be forwarded to the DHCP server. Since servers and networking devices are statically assigned, there will be no DHCP on the Token Ring interface in Atlanta.

MPS Construction

In speaking with Mike, you find that he is willing to use TCP/IP as his exclusive communications protocol. You agree to help him with this transition.

1. We would definitely use private addressing for MPS Construction. As Mike has specified that the only Internet traffic is to be e-mail, there is no reason to run NAT. NAT would only enable workstations to communicate with the Internet, which they are not supposed to do. The workstations do not need translated addresses to speak to the e-mail server in the DMZ, and they also do not need to speak to any device other than the e-mail server to send and receive e-mail.