How to change IP address

How are they currently connected?  When you say you want to "convert" the IP address, what exactly do you mean?  Do you mean you want a device with the address of 192.168.1.1 to talk to something on the 192.168.10.xxx network, or do you want everyone on the 192.168.10.xxx network to think that a device with the real address of 192.168.1.1 is 192.168.10.1.

One is simple routing, the other is network address translation (NAT).  Either can certainly be done, but it depends on what you want and what you are trying to accomplish.

If you are trying to get the two networks to work with each other, try changing the subnet mask to 255.255.0.0.

I don't understand what you are trying to do here. You can just change the ip address in tcp/ip properties, but somehow I don't think this is what you want. Could you explain a little clearer what you are trying to accomplish

" have two networks. The networks are connected together"
How are they connected, by a router?
Are you trying to move the box from one network to the other?

Hi All,
Please let me explain more in detail.
I have ten Computers working with IP 192.168.1.xxx. Also, I have another ten computers working with IP 192.168.10.xxx. I have connected these two networks via an additional hub. I want to send files from the computers using IP 192.168.1.1. to another Computer using IP 192.168.10.1. I tried to use PING 192.168.10.1 from computer using 192.168.1.1, it is not working. Now, I cannot change these two IP groups into the same class for some reasons.  So, I think I need to add something ( like router ) to help me sending files from Computer using IP 192.168.1.1 to another Computer using IP 192.168.10.1. I guess I need a router to re-route the IP 192.168.1.1 to IP 192.168.10.1.  Please advise.  Thanks.

So, I think I need to add something ( like router ) to help me sending
files from Computer using IP 192.168.1.1 to another Computer using IP 192.168.10.1. I guess I need a
router to re-route the IP 192.168.1.1 to IP 192.168.10.1.  Please advise.
Yes you need a router of some sort, either a hardware router (the hub won't do it) or a computer (with 2 NIC's) running Linux/NT/W2k/XP (an os that supports being a router)
Linksys makes a reasonably priced router that will do this, also a 486 with Linux will do this
Note a hub just broadcasts packets to all ports, it can not do routing

There are lots of companies that make routers, in varying price ranges, depending on the size (number of ports) and other management features (SNMP)
the simnpler, usually the less expensive

Would you please one model of router is good enough for my purpose.  Would you please advise how to install the router and how to do the configuration. Thanks.

Actually, you could probably get by with some sort of bridge vs a router since you are trying to "bridge" (connect) two different network segments.

By far, the previous suggestion about adding another NIC in one system and having it participate in both LAN segments would be the most cost efficient and lowest learning curve involved. However, relaxing the restriction of grouping the segements together by using the same subnet mask would make things all that much easier, since this only involves a minor configuration change to your current setup.

Also, you mention that you have these 20 systems (10 per segment) connected via a hub. You would probably benefit from replacing the hub (a broadcast medium) to a switch (a direct to port medium) as far as congestion and Ethernet collisions are concerned. If you start to notice some degradation on the LAN, this would be the first place to look.

Sorry to be harsh, but what the heck are you talking about????

Sure, switching can add performance value, but this is not a performance question.  Last time I checked, you can't switch across a layer 3 hop.  He has already stated he can't play around with the subnet mask, so his only option is to route.

scraig,

It is possible to use a Layer 3 Switch vs a router to achieve the desired results; at least according to my experience.

You may want to read: Layer 3 Switches and Routers Compared (http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid7_gci803146,00.html) for a brief overview.

Dude dude dude.  A layer 3 switch IS a router or in other words a switch with a route processor inside.  Also, don't change history here.  You said "bridge", not "route" and recommended a bridge INSTEAD of a router.  If you are insuating that the term bridge is synonymous with layer 3 switching, than you are officially out of your mind or you may want to start doing some reading yourself.

I just reread what I wrote and apologize for being a bit overheated there.  I am a bit cranky today.  I especially apologize to wmmak and stevenlewis for cluttering your inboxes with argumentative posts.

scraig,

I, for one, accept your apology.

My response was to your comment regarding using a switch. You initially made no reference to the bridge suggestion. There are also brouters which function both as bridges and routers.

I think the hybrid nature of recent devices tends to lend some confusion to the "classical" definition that many people tend to associate with the terminology.

Regardless, an answer was accepted and I do not believe that the continuation of a technical or semantical debate would prove to be beneficial.

I sincerely hope your day goes better than it appears to have thus far.