> Of course it doesn't really matter, but why assign a /24 to a > point-to-point link? (Cross-over cable.) Assign a /30. For example: > > xp: 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.252 bcast 192.168.1.3 > fc4: 192.168.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.252 bcast 192.168.1.3 > > Now you still have *most* of 192.168.1.0/24 to assign to other > networks. True, but the most likely scenerio for future expansion is that the point-to-point link will be replaced with a switch and more machines, and the machines would probably all want to be on the same network. Even if multiple subnets are needed for multihoming, splitting up a class C subnet adds confusion.
