On 09/04/12 12:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote: > There are presently two subnets on the lan, 192.168.209.0 and > 192.168.209.0. I believe that the present netmask is correct in these > circumstances. um, those are both the same? I assume you meant one of them to be different? when you say therre are two subnets, whats the mask for those two 'subnets' ? if its /24 (255.255.255.0) then those subnets would not be able to reach the gateway at 192.168.0.1 without additional routing information. -- john r pierce N 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast