Wired Networks Thread, Expanding our IP range - possibly a stupid question in Technical; Ok...we have 3 sites, all currently with a class C /24 address range:
Site A - 192.168.1.0/24
Site B - ...
4th December 2012, 02:30 PM #1
Expanding our IP range - possibly a stupid question
Ok...we have 3 sites, all currently with a class C /24 address range:
Site A - 192.168.1.0/24
Site B - 192.168.5.0/24
Site C - 192.168.10.0/24
Each giving 254 hosts per site. None have run out yet, but site A is the most likely to (site B & C very unlikely)
By supernetting, and changing the subnet mask to /23 I can expand to 510 hosts per subnet right? So 192.168.0.1 - 192.168.1.254 in site A? But if I do this for site A, would I have to do ir for the other sites and any future sites/VLANs too? Or could the others stay on /24?
Or would an easier solution be to have both 192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.2.0/24 for site A and route between them?
4th December 2012, 02:58 PM #2
- Rep Power
If it is the same site and the same scope I would change it to a /23. If you can segment your network for servers, printers, wireless, etc I would create a separate VLAN, but a /23 network is acceptable for computers. Any more than that and I would recommend segmenting for performance.
If you change your subnet to a /23 you would have 192.168.1.0-192.168.2.255 (1.0 being the network address and 2.255 being the broadcast address).
The other sites could all stay at /24. This change would not effect their networks. You will have to change all the subnet masks for your devices at Site A either manually or via DHCP (don't forget printers, servers, statically assigned devices). And you will have to update the routes between your sites to reflect the network change. Are you routed statically, eigrp, ospf, etc?
Last edited by SuperfluousAdjective; 4th December 2012 at 03:01 PM.
4th December 2012, 03:07 PM #3
Thanks for that.
I guess I will weigh up the options - change the subnet or VLAN....certainly isn't needed quite yet, it was more I was wondering about the compatibility with the other sites.
Tbh it might actually be less work to create a VLAN for clients on 192.168.2.0/24
Also in answer to your question, we're routed statically
4th December 2012, 03:09 PM #4
I would just make another vlan than making your current ranges larger. It will help with broadcast traffic.
4th December 2012, 03:17 PM #5
- Rep Power
Just as a side note if you create a separate vlan you would have to make sure to manually forward DHCP traffic back to your DHCP server (with an additional scope) within your layer 3 device. Not difficult, but thought I'd mention it in case you found it useful. That's pretty much the only catch of adding a vlan on a basic network. Obviously the broadcast traffic will not span across the two networks so make sure to mitigate any issues with that. And with only three routers it isn't too big of a deal to update a statically routed network and the commands for your devices should be easy to find or replicate by looking at the running config.
Originally Posted by sidewinder
Last edited by SuperfluousAdjective; 4th December 2012 at 05:00 PM.
By dsk in forum Wireless Networks
Last Post: 20th February 2009, 01:32 PM
By sidewinder in forum Wireless Networks
Last Post: 19th October 2007, 11:19 AM
By tosca925 in forum Windows
Last Post: 12th August 2007, 01:35 PM
By Grommit in forum Windows
Last Post: 17th November 2006, 04:59 PM
By crc-ict in forum Windows
Last Post: 12th October 2006, 12:44 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)