192.168.x.x network larger than 254 hosts?
Hi, I need to extend an existing Class C network (192.168.0.0/24) to allow about 3-400 hosts.
Is it ok to set the subnet mask to /23 (thus allowing 510 hosts) but keep the IP numbers in the 192.168.x.x range?
I would get the usable range 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.1.254 but I dont know if that is 'legal' in a local addressing scheme.
Would it be better to switch to a 172. or 10. scheme? I would rather keep it at 192.168.x.x so that devices with fixed IP's don't need configuring.
Bit rusty with all this Networking gubbins :)
Is it ok to set the subnet mask to /23 (thus allowing 510 hosts) but keep the IP numbers in the 192.168.x.x range?
I would get the usable range 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.1.254 but I dont know if that is 'legal' in a local addressing scheme.
Would it be better to switch to a 172. or 10. scheme? I would rather keep it at 192.168.x.x so that devices with fixed IP's don't need configuring.
Bit rusty with all this Networking gubbins :)
Not that I am questioning you, giltjr, but why would you want to NAT over multiple subnets? Just curious, is all. Thanks!
Please point out to me where I mentioned doing NAT'ing?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>Would it be better to switch to a 172. or 10. scheme? I would rather keep it at 192.168.x.x so that devices with fixed IP's don't need configuring.
No, but for many not very familiar with subnets, classful/classless routing, etc, it can be a bit difficult to understand "What should I use". It is perfectly legal to increase your subnet mask from a /24 to a /23. This is called supernetting and not VLSM. So with the being said along with the other comments, you should be set to increase the mask and ensure that all your hosts and other network devices have been updated along with any NAT statements that you might have defined as well as any static/dynamic routing in your network.
Good Luck
Billy
No, but for many not very familiar with subnets, classful/classless routing, etc, it can be a bit difficult to understand "What should I use". It is perfectly legal to increase your subnet mask from a /24 to a /23. This is called supernetting and not VLSM. So with the being said along with the other comments, you should be set to increase the mask and ensure that all your hosts and other network devices have been updated along with any NAT statements that you might have defined as well as any static/dynamic routing in your network.
Good Luck
Billy
It is both VLSM and supernetting. Supernetting is one of the two things you can do when you do VLSM.
VLSM is using subnet masks that do not conform to the old "classfull" subnets. You can either increase the number of hosts by reducing the number of bits used for the mask or decrease the nubmer of hosts by increasing the number of bits used for the mask.
Increasing the number of hosts is supernetting (fewer bits in the mask). Decreasing the number of hosts is just further subnetting (more bits in the mask).
VLSM is using subnet masks that do not conform to the old "classfull" subnets. You can either increase the number of hosts by reducing the number of bits used for the mask or decrease the nubmer of hosts by increasing the number of bits used for the mask.
Increasing the number of hosts is supernetting (fewer bits in the mask). Decreasing the number of hosts is just further subnetting (more bits in the mask).
Interesting:
>It is both VLSM and supernetting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernet
"A supernet is an Internet Protocol (IP) network that is formed from the combination of two or more networks (or subnets) with a common Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) routing prefix."
http://www.softpanorama.org/Net/Transport_layer/subnetting_and_vlsm.shtml
It is not both VLSM and supernetting, I am not trying to be argumentative, simply ensuring that the correct information is being conveyed.
Billy
>It is both VLSM and supernetting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernet
"A supernet is an Internet Protocol (IP) network that is formed from the combination of two or more networks (or subnets) with a common Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) routing prefix."
http://www.softpanorama.org/Net/Transport_layer/subnetting_and_vlsm.shtml
It is not both VLSM and supernetting, I am not trying to be argumentative, simply ensuring that the correct information is being conveyed.
Billy
Maybe is just the way I under stand it.
From Protocol Requirments in the wiki link on Supernet:
Supernetting requires the use of routing protocols that support variable length subnet masking (VLSM) and the Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) method.
Meaning with VLSM there is no supernetting.
From Protocol Requirments in the wiki link on Supernet:
Supernetting requires the use of routing protocols that support variable length subnet masking (VLSM) and the Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) method.
Meaning with VLSM there is no supernetting.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Ok thanks all. Bit difficult to award points on this one as it went a bit freeforall in the middle there. Thanks for being a bit pedantic Billy, sometimes it is important to state exactly the technically accurate thing.
So now I understand that, as there is a nice logical place to split into 2 subnets I think I'll do that. Glad to know that super-netting is possible in the way I wanted to do it though, cheers!
So now I understand that, as there is a nice logical place to split into 2 subnets I think I'll do that. Glad to know that super-netting is possible in the way I wanted to do it though, cheers!
However, why do you want to do this? I personally think it would be better to have two /24's and us a router to route traffic between the two subnets when needed.
Unless there is a technical reason they must be on the same subnet, have multiple smaller subnets is better than having fewer larger subnets.