How to change IP address

Hi,

I have two networks. The networks are connected together. The first network, the IP address is 192.168.1.xxx. The second worknet is 192.168.10.xxx.  I want to use a router or something else to convert the first IP 192.168.1.1 to the IP 192.168.10.1.  Please advise how can I achieve this.  Thanks.

Winson
wmmakAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Webinar] Streamline your web hosting managementRegister Today

x
 
scraig84Connect With a Mentor Commented:
There are very few if any cheap hardware routers for LAN routing.  Most low end routers are designed for getting connections to a branch office or to the Internet.  A 2600 model from Cisco would probably be the lowest you could get away with (at least that's what I can think of off the top of my head), and that will run you a couple grand.  Stevenlewis mentions that Linksys has some that can do this, but I have never seen any LAN routers from them.  I just checked their web site and did not see any in their product section.  However, if you are familiar with Linux, you could set up a box to route - or you could even use an NT server.  All you have to do there is check the "ip forwarding" box in the networking settings and have a couple of NIC cards addressed appropriately for the different networks.  From there all you would need to do is set the default gateway on your client machines to point to the address of the router.

I will also mention that just about any Cisco router COULD do it with a single Ethernet interface with secondary addressing.  However, this is typically considered a temporary solution to problems and should not be considered a long-term solution.

Good Luck!
0
 
scraig84Commented:
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.
0
 
CyberStretchCommented:
If you are trying to get the two networks to work with each other, try changing the subnet mask to 255.255.0.0.
0
SMB Security Just Got a Layer Stronger

WatchGuard acquires Percipient Networks to extend protection to the DNS layer, further increasing the value of Total Security Suite.  Learn more about what this means for you and how you can improve your security with WatchGuard today!

 
stevenlewisCommented:
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?
0
 
wmmakAuthor Commented:
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.
0
 
stevenlewisCommented:
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
0
 
stevenlewisCommented:
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
0
 
wmmakAuthor Commented:
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.


0
 
CyberStretchCommented:
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.
0
 
scraig84Commented:
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.
0
 
CyberStretchCommented:
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.
0
 
scraig84Commented:
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.

0
 
scraig84Commented:
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.
0
 
CyberStretchCommented:
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.
0
All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.