Cisco 200-301 Bundle

A /28 block provides only 14 conventional usable IPv4 host addresses. That is smaller than the requested 28 hosts, so this tempting tighter subnet would run out of addresses.

A /26 subnet has 62 usable addresses and could fit the hosts, but consumes twice the /27 address space. The question specifically asks for the MOST specific prefix that still meets capacity, which is /27.

With /29, only 6 usable addresses remain after the network and broadcast. It is an even smaller block than /28 and cannot satisfy this host count.

Eight is the number of IPv4 addresses in one /29 block, not the number of such blocks inside a /24. The five borrowed network bits generate 32 subnet boundaries.

Sixteen would correspond to borrowing four bits, as when dividing a /24 into /28 networks. A /29 uses one more bit and therefore twice as many subnet IDs.

Sixty-four equal groups would require borrowing six bits and using /30, not /29. The required /29 boundaries occur every eight addresses and total 32 groups.

Those are the two reserved boundaries of this conventional /30 block. They do not serve as the ordinary pair of router endpoints when /30 addressing is required.

The .32 address belongs to the next /30 block, so the two interfaces would not share the announced on-link subnet. A WAN link requires addresses in the same prefix.

The .27 address belongs to the preceding /30 subnet, not the .28/30 block. Selecting it crosses a network boundary even though the numerical difference looks small.

Sharing the first three octets describes a /24, not the stated /25. The fourth-octet high bit separates these two endpoints into different local links.

A /25 contains 128 addresses, half the size of a /24. The destination in the lower half cannot be assumed on-link for a host in the upper half.

The upper /25 broadcast is .255, not .240. The hosts are separated by the /25 boundary, not because the configured source is itself a broadcast address.

The final octet 128 sets one bit, representing /25 and 128-address blocks. The requested /26 has two fixed bits in its final octet.

That final octet corresponds to /27, which leaves only five host bits. It would make 32-address subnets instead of the requested 64-address /26 network.

The /24 mask fixes three octets and leaves a full host octet. It would combine four /26 address blocks into one larger subnet, changing the design.

A conventional /28 has only 14 usable IPv4 host addresses. The user and printer VLANs would immediately exceed that capacity, regardless of how the networks are aligned.

A single VLAN and subnet does not provide the requested three separate broadcast domains. The design needs distinct VLANs and corresponding nonoverlapping IP networks.

A conventional /30 offers only two usable host addresses. It is useful for certain point-to-point links, not a 22-device printer segment.

Address .31 is the all-host-bits-one directed broadcast of .16/28, so it is not the highest conventional usable host. The gateway should stop one address earlier.

The .32 address starts the next /28 block and is its network identifier. It is not a host inside the given subnet and cannot be its gateway.

Address .16 is the network identifier with all host bits zero. A conventional gateway must use an eligible host address instead of the subnet ID.

A /32 specifies an individual host route and does not by itself create a shared connected network for two devices. Additional routing or unnumbered design would be required.

A /29 consumes eight addresses and is larger than both /30 and /31. It does not minimize allocation for a two-router point-to-point link.

Conventional /30 has two reserved boundaries and two usable hosts, so those boundary addresses are not ordinary endpoint assignments. An RFC 3021 /31 is the supported exception.

Both prefixes are IPv4 networks. Their sizes differ but both can cover the same addresses, so prefix length alone does not establish separation.

The entire 32-address /27 is inside the /26, including many ordinary host addresses. It is a material routing and address-planning collision.

The .32 boundary is correctly aligned for a /27. The fault is overlap with the existing /26 allocation, not invalid alignment.

The 144 subnet starts after the original /23 ends and leaves the entire 143 subnet unallocated. Those two do not form the required complete partition.

The second network ID is not aligned to a /24 boundary and lies within the first proposed /24. It cannot be a separate correctly aligned nonoverlapping /24.

The /23 already contains the smaller /24, so the proposed networks overlap. The request is for two disjoint equal-sized LANs, not a parent and a child prefix.

Borrowing one bit from /24 yields only two /25 networks rather than the required four. Each /25 consumes half the original block.

Borrowing three bits yields eight /27 networks. That would divide the allocation more finely than four equal groups and is not the specified equal partition.

Repeating the parent /24 four times would overlap the same 256-address allocation. Prefixes must be lengthened to produce independently routed subnet IDs.